A Remark on Gupta, Gupta and Singh Optional Randomized Response Model

Abstract

Gupta et al (2002) suggested an optional randomized response model under the assumption that the mean of the scrambling variable S is ‘unity’ [i.e. µs = 1]. This assumption limits the use of Gupta et al’s (2002) randomized response model. Keeping this in view we have suggested a modified optional randomized response model which can be used in practice without any supposition and restriction over the mean (µs) of the scrambling variables S. It has been shown that the estimator of the mean of the stigmatized variable based on the proposed optional randomized response sampling is more efficient than the Eicchorn and Hayre (1983) procedure and Gupta et al’s (2002) optional randomized technique when the mean of the scrambling S is larger than unity [i.e. µs > 1]. A numerical illustration is given in support of the present study.

Judicial gatekeeping on scientific validity with risk assessment tools

“…The AUC is an overall discrimination statistic that is derived from a statistical plotting of TPRs and TNRs (technically, 1 -TNR) across a risk tool's rating system. 62 The AUC requires computing the TPR and TNR at every possible cutpoint. Recall the 2 × 2 contingency table adopts a dichotomous prediction of higher versus lower risk.…”

Scrambling Reports: New Estimators for Estimating the Population Mean of Sensitive Variables

“…Warner's proposal for estimating the population proportion π A of a sensitive characteristic A is πA = ρ ys −(1−P) 2P−1 . Extensions to deal with quantitative sensitive variables were developed by Greenberg et al [6], Eriksson et al [7], Huang [8], Bouza [9], Arnab [10], Singh and Gorey [11], Hussain and Shahid [12], Narjis et al [13], Bouza et al [14], Hussain et al [15], and Azeem and Ali [16], among other works. Another utility of RR techniques is their applicability to sensitive issues, such as health areas (see Murtaza et al [17]), social issues (see Chong et al [18]), and drug use (see Perri et al [19] and Kirtasze et al [20]), among other sensitive issues.…”