A comparison of randomized response, computer-assisted self-interview, and face-to-face direct questioning:Eliciting sensitive information in the context of welfare and unemployment benefit  

Oleh:

Hox, Joop J. ; Gils, Ger van ; Bouts, Jan ; Heijden, Peter G.M. van der

Jenis: Article from Journal - ilmiah internasional
Dalam koleksi: Sociological Methods & Research (SMR) vol. 28 no. 04 (May 2000), page 505-537.
Topik: age; Gender; validity; Interview

Ketersediaan

Perpustakaan PKPM Nomor Panggil: S28 Non-tandon: 1 (dapat dipinjam: 0) Tandon: tidak ada

Lihat Detail Induk

Isi artikel

This article assesses the validity of responses to sensitive questions using four different methods. In an experimental setting, the authors compared a computer-assisted self interview (CASI),face-to-face direct questioning, and two different varieties of randomized response. All respondents interviewed had been identified as having committed welfare and unemployment benefit fraud. The interviewers did not know that respondents had been caught for fraud, and the respondents did not know that the researchers had this information. The results are evaluated by comparing the percentage of false negatives. The authors also looked for variables that might explain why some respondents admit fraud and others do not. The proportions of respondents admitting fraud are relatively low. between 19 percent and 49 percent. The two randomized response conditions were superior in eliciting admissions of fraud. A number of background variables, notably gender. age. still receiving benefit. and duration and perception of fraud. are related to admitting fraud. Although the randomized response conditions performed much better than face-to-face direct questioning and CASI, the percentage of respondents admitting fraud is only around.50 percent. Some possible reasons for this are discussed.

Opini Anda

Klik untuk menuliskan opini Anda tentang koleksi ini!

Kembali