IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v52y2023i3p1493-1518.html

A Meta-analysis of Studies on the Performance of the Crosswise Model

Author

Listed:
  • Rainer Schnell
  • Kathrin Thomas

Abstract

This article provides a meta-analysis of studies using the crosswise model (CM) in estimating the prevalence of sensitive characteristics in different samples and populations. On a data set of 141 items published in 33 either articles or books, we compare the difference (Δ) between estimates based on the CM and a direct question (DQ). The overall effect size of Δ is 4.88; 95% CI [4.56, 5.21]. The results of a meta-regression indicate that Δ is smaller when general populations and nonprobability samples are considered. The population effect suggests an education effect: Differences between the CM and DQ estimates are more likely to occur when highly educated populations, such as students, are studied. Our findings raise concerns to what extent the CM is able to improve estimates of sensitive behavior in general population samples.

Suggested Citation

  • Rainer Schnell & Kathrin Thomas, 2023. "A Meta-analysis of Studies on the Performance of the Crosswise Model," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 52(3), pages 1493-1518, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:52:y:2023:i:3:p:1493-1518
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124121995520
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124121995520
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124121995520?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. Thorben Kundt, 2014. "Applying “Benford’s law” to the Crosswise Model: Findings from an online survey on tax evasion," Working Paper 148/2014, Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg.
    2. Gingerich, Daniel W. & Oliveros, Virginia & Corbacho, Ana & Ruiz-Vega, Mauricio, 2016. "When to Protect? Using the Crosswise Model to Integrate Protected and Direct Responses in Surveys of Sensitive Behavior," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 132-156, April.
    3. Jun-Wu Yu & Guo-Liang Tian & Man-Lai Tang, 2008. "Two new models for survey sampling with sensitive characteristic: design and analysis," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 67(3), pages 251-263, April.
    4. Korndörfer, Martin & Krumpal, Ivar & Schmukle, Stefan C., 2014. "Measuring and explaining tax evasion: Improving self-reports using the crosswise model," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 18-32.
    5. Sue Duval & Richard Tweedie, 2000. "Trim and Fill: A Simple Funnel-Plot–Based Method of Testing and Adjusting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 56(2), pages 455-463, June.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Mario Bossler & Christopher Osiander & Julia Schmidtke & Mark Trappmann, 2023. "Free riding on short‐time work allowances? Results from an experimental survey design," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 76(4), pages 882-901, November.
    4. 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.
    5. Walzenbach, Sandra & Hinz, Thomas, 2022. "Puzzling Answers to Crosswise Questions - Examining Overall Prevalence Rates, Primacy Effects and Learning Effects," EconStor Preprints 249353, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    6. Ulrich Thy Jensen, 2020. "Is self-reported social distancing susceptible to social desirability bias? Using the crosswise model to elicit sensitive behaviors," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(2).
    7. 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.
    8. repec:plo:pone00:0171654 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Qian Li & Yan Chen & Shikun Sun & Muyuan Zhu & Jing Xue & Zihan Gao & Jinfeng Zhao & Yihe Tang, 2022. "Research on Crop Irrigation Schedules Under Deficit Irrigation—A Meta-analysis," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 36(12), pages 4799-4817, September.
    10. Bart Verkuil & Serpil Atasayi & Marc L Molendijk, 2015. "Workplace Bullying and Mental Health: A Meta-Analysis on Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-16, August.
    11. Damiano Pizzol & Mike Trott & Igor Grabovac & Mario Antunes & Anna Claudia Colangelo & Simona Ippoliti & Cristian Petre Ilie & Anne Carrie & Nicola Veronese & Lee Smith, 2021. "Laparoscopy in Low-Income Countries: 10-Year Experience and Systematic Literature Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-11, May.
    12. Wolfgang Goymann & John C. Wingfield, 2014. "Male-to-female testosterone ratios, dimorphism, and life history—what does it really tell us?," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 25(4), pages 685-699.
    13. repec:plo:pone00:0204887 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Ünal, Zehra E. & Kartal, Gamze & Ulusoy, Serra & Ala, Aslı M. & Yilmaz, Munube & Geary, David C., 2023. "Relative contributions of g and basic domain-specific mathematics skills to complex mathematics competencies," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    15. Chryssoula Chatzigeorgiou & Evangelos Christou & Ioanna Simeli, 2025. "From Brochures to Bytes: Destination Branding through Social, Mobile, and AI—A Systematic Narrative Review with Meta-Analysis," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-57, September.
    16. Daniele Zago & Maria Eugênia Andrighetto Canozzi & Júlio Otávio Jardim Barcellos, 2020. "Pregnant beef cow’s nutrition and its effects on postnatal weight and carcass quality of their progeny," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-20, August.
    17. Peiyu Ge & Tomoki SEKIGUCHI, 2026. "A Meta-Analysis of Perceived Overqualification: Resource-Based Mechanisms with Cultural Moderators," Discussion papers e-25-012, Graduate School of Economics , Kyoto University.
    18. Viktoria Maria Baumeister & Leonie Petra Kuen & Maike Bruckes & Gerhard Schewe, 2021. "The Relationship of Work-Related ICT Use With Well-being, Incorporating the Role of Resources and Demands: A Meta-Analysis," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, November.
    19. Gundula Krack, 2019. "How to make value-based health insurance designs more effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 841-856, August.
    20. Angélica Pigola & Priscila Rezende Costa, 2022. "In search of understanding about knowledge and learning on innovation performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(7), pages 3995-4022, July.
    21. Carlos Barros, 2012. "Sustainable Tourism in Inhambane-Mozambique," CEsA Working Papers 105, CEsA - Centre for African and Development Studies.
    22. 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.

    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:sae:somere:v:52:y:2023:i:3:p:1493-1518. 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.