IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-03119861.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Sex, Lies and Measurement: Consistency tests for Indirect Response Survey Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Erica Chuang
  • Pascaline Dupas

    (Stanford University)

  • Élise Huillery

    (LEDa - Laboratoire d'Economie de Dauphine - IRD - Institut de Recherche pour le Développement - Université Paris Dauphine-PSL - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Juliette Seban

    (Sciences Po - Sciences Po)

Abstract

Social scientists seeking to analyze socially sanctioned behaviors or attitudes increasingly rely on indirect response survey methods, meant to veil the answers of individual respondents. We propose simple internal consistency tests for two such methods, the list experiment and the randomized response technique (its Warner and Crosswise variants). We implement these tests in two studies on sexual and reproductive health behavior in Cameroon and Côte d'Ivoire. Non-compliance with instructions among surveyed individuals appears high and not easily char-acterizable. The tests we propose can be easily and cheaply embedded in measurement tools, allowing researchers to at least know whether their data is reliable before using it.

Suggested Citation

  • Erica Chuang & Pascaline Dupas & Élise Huillery & Juliette Seban, 2021. "Sex, Lies and Measurement: Consistency tests for Indirect Response Survey Methods," Post-Print hal-03119861, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03119861
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2020.102582
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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).
    2. Höglinger, Marc & Diekmann, Andreas, 2017. "Uncovering a Blind Spot in Sensitive Question Research: False Positives Undermine the Crosswise-Model RRT," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 131-137, January.
    3. Dupas, Pascaline & Huillery, Elise & Seban, Juliette, 2018. "Risk information, risk salience, and adolescent sexual behavior: Experimental evidence from Cameroon," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 151-175.
    4. 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.
    5. Eady, Gregory, 2017. "The Statistical Analysis of Misreporting on Sensitive Survey Questions," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 241-259, April.
    6. Blair, Graeme & Imai, Kosuke, 2012. "Statistical Analysis of List Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 47-77, January.
    7. 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.
    8. Imai, Kosuke, 2011. "Multivariate Regression Analysis for the Item Count Technique," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 106(494), pages 407-416.
    9. Ulf Böckenholt & Sema Barlas & Peter G. M. van der Heijden, 2009. "Do randomized‐response designs eliminate response biases? An empirical study of non‐compliance behavior," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(3), pages 377-392, April.
    10. Pascaline Dupas & Élise Huillery & Juliette Seban, 2018. "Risk Information, Risk Salience, and Teenagers Sexual Behavior: Experimental Evidence from Cameroon," Post-Print hal-01645677, HAL.
    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. repec:plo:pone00:0193985 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. De Cao, Elisabetta & Lutz, Clemens, 2014. "Sensitive survey questions," Research Report 14017-EEF, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    4. S. Rinken & S. Pasadas-del-Amo & M. Rueda & B. Cobo, 2021. "No magic bullet: estimating anti-immigrant sentiment and social desirability bias with the item-count technique," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(6), pages 2139-2159, December.
    5. 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.
    6. 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).
    7. 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.
    8. repec:dgr:rugsom:14017-eef is not listed on IDEAS
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Sophia Hatz & Hanne Fjelde & David Randahl, 2024. "Could vote buying be socially desirable? Exploratory analyses of a ‘failed’ list experiment," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(3), pages 2337-2355, June.
    12. 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.
    13. John List, 2025. "Valuing Non-Marketed Goods and Services Using a List Field Experiment," Framed Field Experiments 00809, The Field Experiments Website.
    14. Celhay, Pablo A. & Depetris-Chauvin, Emilio & Riquelme, Cristina, 2024. "When a strike strikes twice: Massive student mobilizations and teenage pregnancy in Chile," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    15. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/76npisrda99aop75h6fmi4vduu is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Cagé, Julia & Rueda, Valeria, 2020. "Sex and the mission: the conflicting effects of early Christian missions on HIV in sub-Saharan Africa," Journal of Demographic Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(3), pages 213-257, September.
    17. Ezequiel Gonzalez-Ocantos & Chad Kiewiet de Jonge & Carlos Meléndez & David Nickerson & Javier Osorio, 2020. "Carrots and sticks: Experimental evidence of vote-buying and voter intimidation in Guatemala," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(1), pages 46-61, January.
    18. Pablo Celhay & Emilio Depetris-Chauvin & María Cristina Riquelme, 2020. "When a Strike Streikes Twice: Massive Student Mobilizations and Teenage," Documentos de Trabajo 550, Instituto de Economia. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile..
    19. Fang, Ximeng & Goette, Lorenz & Rockenbach, Bettina & Sutter, Matthias & Tiefenbeck, Verena & Schoeb, Samuel & Staake, Thorsten, 2023. "Complementarities in behavioral interventions: Evidence from a field experiment on resource conservation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    20. Breda, Thomas & Grenet, Julien & Monnet, Marion & Van Effenterre, Clémentine, 2020. "Do Female Role Models Reduce the Gender Gap in Science? Evidence from French High Schools," IZA Discussion Papers 13163, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    21. Pier Francesco Perri & Eleni Manoli & Tasos C. Christofides, 2023. "Assessing the effectiveness of indirect questioning techniques by detecting liars," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 64(5), pages 1483-1506, October.
    22. Susan Athey & Katy Ann Bergstrom & Vitor Hadad & Julian C. Jamison & Berk Özler & Luca Parisotto & Julius Dohbit Sama, 2021. "Shared Decision-Making: Can Improved Counseling Increase Willingness to Pay for Modern Contraceptives?," Discussion Papers 2105, University of Exeter, Department of Economics.
    23. 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.

    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:hal:journl:hal-03119861. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.