Demographische Prozesse, Bevölkerungsstruktur und -entwicklung in Deutschland

Pötzsch, Olga

doi:10.1007/978-3-658-01410-0_6

Cited by 9 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the ECWM conditions, respondents were first explained the ECWM in detail and then had to answer comprehension questions and were provided with feedback on their responses to the comprehension questions to ensure they had understood the instructions. Then, respondents in the ECWM conditions were simultaneously presented with a sensitive statement and a non-sensitive statement: "I was born in November or December" in the group with randomization probability p 1 or "I was born between January and October" in the group with randomization probability p 2 (p 1 = .158, p 2 = .842; Pötzsch, 2012). Respondents were asked to provide a joint answer by choosing one of the two answer options "I agree with both statements or I agree with none of the statements" versus "I agree with exactly one of the statements (irrespective of which one)."…”

Section: Design and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Substance or Noise?

Meisters,

Hoffmann,

Musch

2024

European Journal of Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Indirect questioning techniques aim to provide more valid prevalence estimates for sensitive attributes than conventional direct questions. Despite being an important prerequisite for high estimation validity, indirect questioning techniques’ retest stability has rarely been addressed. For temporally stable attributes, high stability of both prevalence estimates and individual responses is expected; however, insufficient understanding of the instructions and random response behavior may compromise retest stability. The present study is the first to assess the retest stability of the Extended Crosswise Model (ECWM), a recent indirect questioning technique, and to compare it to the retest stability of a conventional direct question (DQ). With a retest interval of approximately 10 days, we asked N = 2,317 mothers twice whether they had smoked during a previous pregnancy. In both ECWM and DQ conditions, prevalence estimates were virtually identical over time, and most respondents answered consistently (ECWM: 89%, DQ: 95%). In the ECWM condition, inconsistent response behavior was slightly more prevalent and negatively associated with respondents’ education. However, as these effects were small, the retest stability of both ECWM and DQ in surveys on sensitive attributes was evaluated as high.

show abstract

Section: Design and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Substance or Noise?

Meisters,

Hoffmann,

Musch

2024

European Journal of Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the DQ conditions, respondents were presented with a sensitive statement, such as "I have illegally disposed of trash" and had to indicate whether they agreed with this statement or not. In the ECWM conditions with randomization probability p1, respondents were simultaneously presented with a sensitive statement, such as "I have illegally disposed of trash" and a non-sensitive statement, such as "I was born in November or December" or "My mother was born in November or December" (p1 = .158; Pötzsch, 2012). They were asked to provide a joint answer by choosing one of the two answer options "I agree with both statements or I agree with none of the statements" versus "I agree with exactly one of the statements (irrespective of which one)".…”

Section: Questioning Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

More than random responding: Empirical evidence for the validity of the (Extended) Crosswise Model

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Randomized Response Technique (Warner, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 60, 63-69, 1965) has been developed to control for socially desirable responses in surveys on sensitive attributes. The Crosswise Model (CWM; Yu et al., Metrika, 67, 251-263, 2008) and its extension, the Extended Crosswise Model (ECWM; Heck et al., Behavior Research Methods, 50, 1895-1905, 2018), are advancements of the Randomized Response Technique that have provided promising results in terms of improved validity of the obtained prevalence estimates compared to estimates based on conventional direct questions. However, recent studies have raised the question as to whether these promising results might have been primarily driven by a methodological artifact in terms of random responses rather than a successful control of socially desirable responding. The current study was designed to disentangle the influence of successful control of socially desirable responding and random answer behavior on the validity of (E)CWM estimates. To this end, we orthogonally manipulated the direction of social desirability (undesirable vs. desirable) and the prevalence (high vs. low) of sensitive attributes. Our results generally support the notion that the ECWM successfully controls social desirability bias and is inconsistent with the alternative account that ECWM estimates are distorted by a substantial influence of random responding. The results do not rule out a small proportion of random answers, especially when socially undesirable attributes with high prevalence are studied, or when high randomization probabilities are applied. Our results however do rule out that random responding is a major factor that can account for the findings attesting to the improved validity of (E)CWM as compared with DQ estimates.

show abstract

Arbeitsmarkt und Demografie

Stecker

Schnettler

2018

Arbeitsmarktsoziologie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Demographische Prozesse, Bevölkerungsstruktur und -entwicklung in Deutschland

Cited by 9 publications

References 5 publications

Substance or Noise?

Substance or Noise?

More than random responding: Empirical evidence for the validity of the (Extended) Crosswise Model

Arbeitsmarkt und Demografie

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About