[AAPOR - The American Association for Public Opinion Research 2011. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 7th Ed. Lanexo: AAPOR.]Search in Google Scholar
[Angrist, J.D., G.W. Imbens, and D.B. Rubin. 1996. “Identification of Causal Effects Using Instrumental Variables.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 91: 444-455. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1996.10476902.10.1080/01621459.1996.10476902]Search in Google Scholar
[Aquilino, W.S. 1994. “Interview Mode Effects in Surveys of Drug and Alcohol Use: A Field Experiment.” Public Opinion Quarterly 58: 210-240. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1086/269419.10.1086/269419]Search in Google Scholar
[Bartus, T. 2005. “Estimation of Marginal Effects Using Margeff.” The Stata Journal 5: 309-329.10.1177/1536867X0500500303]Search in Google Scholar
[Biemer, P.P. 2010. “Overview of Design Issues: Total Survey Error.” In Handbook of Survey Research, edited by P.P. Biemer, P.V. Marsden, and J.D. Wright, 27-57.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bingley: Emerald Publishing Group Limited.]Search in Google Scholar
[Boeije, H. and G.J.L.M. Lensvelt-Mulders. 2002. “Honest by Chance: A Qualitative Interview Study to Clarify Respondents' (Non-)compliance with Computer-Assisted- Randomized Response.” Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique 75: 24-39.10.1177/075910630207500104]Search in Google Scholar
[Boruch, R.F. 1971. “Assuring Confidentiality of Responses in Social Research: A Note on Strategies.” The American Sociologist 6: 308-311.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bradburn, N., S. Sudman, and B. Wansink. 2004. Asking Questions. Revised Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bullock, H.E. 2006. “Attributions for Poverty: A Comparison of Middle-Class and Welfare Recipient Attitudes.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29: 2059-2082.10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb02295.x]Search in Google Scholar
[DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb02295.x.10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb02295.x]Search in Google Scholar
[Böckenholt, U., S. Barlas, and P.G.M. van der Heijden. 2009. “Do Randomized-Response Designs Eliminate Response Biases? An Empirical Study of Non-Compliance Behavior.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 24: 377-392. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/jae.1052.10.1002/jae.1052]Search in Google Scholar
[Böckenholt, U. and P.G.M. van der Heijden. 2007. “Item Randomized-Response Models for Measuring Noncompliance: Risk-Return Perceptions, Social Influences, and Self- Protective Responses.” Psychometrika 72: 245-262. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s11336-005-1495-y.10.1007/s11336-005-1495-y]Search in Google Scholar
[Cialdini, R.B. 2007. “Descriptive Social Norms as Underappreciated Sources of Social Control.” Psychometrika 72: 263-268. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11336- 006-1560-6.]Search in Google Scholar
[Clark, S.J. and R.A. Desharnais. 1998. “Honest Answers to Embarrassing Questions: Detecting Cheating in the Randomized Response Model.” Psychological Methods 3: 160-168. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.2.160.10.1037/1082-989X.3.2.160]Search in Google Scholar
[Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Vol. 2. Hillshale, NJ: Erlbaum.]Search in Google Scholar
[Coutts, E. and B. Jann. 2011. “Sensitive Questions in Online Surveys: Experimental Results for the Randomized Response Technique (RRT) and the Unmatched Count 54 Journal of Official Statistics Technique (UCT).” Sociological Methods & Research 40: 169-193. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124110390768.10.1177/0049124110390768]Search in Google Scholar
[Coutts, E., B. Jann, I. Krumpal, and A.-F. Näher. 2011. “Plagiarism in Student Papers: Prevalence Estimates Using Special Techniques for Sensitive Questions.” Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik) 231: 749-760.10.1515/jbnst-2011-5-612]Search in Google Scholar
[De Jong, M.G., R. Pieters, and S. Stremersch. 2012. “Analysis of Sensitive Questions Across Cultures: An Application of Multigroup Item Randomized Response Theory to Sexual Attitudes and Behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 19: 153-176. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029394.10.1037/a0029394]Search in Google Scholar
[De Leeuw, E.D. and J. van der Zouwen. 1988. “Data Quality in Telephone and Face to Face Surveys: A Comparative Metaanalysis.” In Telephone Survey Methodology, edited by R.M. Groves, P.P. Biemer, L.E. Lyberg, J.T. Massey, W.L. Nicholls, and J. Waksberg, 283-299. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.]Search in Google Scholar
[De Schrijver, A. 2012. “Sample Survey on Sensitive Topics: Investigating Respondents' Understanding and Trust in Alternative Versions of the Randomized Response Technique.” Journal of Research Practice 8: 1-17.]Search in Google Scholar
[Fidler, D.S. and R.E. Kleinknecht. 1977. “Randomized Response versus Direct Questioning: Two Data-Collection Methods for Sensitive Information.” Psychological Bulletin 84: 1045-1049. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.1045.10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.1045]Search in Google Scholar
[Fox, J.A. and P.E. Tracy. 1986. Randomized Response: A Method for Sensitive Surveys. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.]Search in Google Scholar
[Ganzeboom, H.B.G., P.M. De Graaf, and D.J. Treiman. 1992. “A Standard International Socio-Economic Index of Occupational Status.” Social Science Research 21: 1-56. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0049-089X(92)90017-B.10.1016/0049-089X(92)90017-B]Search in Google Scholar
[Greenberg, B.G., A.L.A. Abul-Ela, W.R. Simmons, and D.G. Horvitz. 1969. “The Unrelated Question Randomized Response Model: Theoretical Framework.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 64: 520-539. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 01621459.1969.10500991.10.1080/01621459.1969.10500991]Search in Google Scholar
[Greenberg, B.G., R.R. Kuebler Jr., J.R. Abernathy, and D.G.G. Horvitz. 1971. “Application of the Randomized Response Technique in Obtaining Quantitative Data.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 66: 243-250. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/01621459.1971.10482248.10.1080/01621459.1971.10482248]Search in Google Scholar
[Groves, R.M. 2004 [1989]. Survey Error and Survey Costs. Hoboken: Wiley & Sons.]Search in Google Scholar
[Groves, R.M., F.J. Fowler, J.M. Lepkowski, E. Singer, and R. Tourangeau. 2009. Survey Methodology. Hoboken: Wiley & Sons.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hausman, J. 2001. “Mismeasured Variables in Econometric Analysis: Problems From the Right and Problems from the Left.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 15: 57-67.10.1257/jep.15.4.57]Search in Google Scholar
[Hendrickx, J. 2002. “ISKO: Stata Module to Recode 4 Digit ISCO-88 Occupational Codes, Statistical Software Components s425802.” Boston College Department of Economics. revised 20 Oct 2004. Available at: https://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/ s425802.html (accessed February 14, 2015).]Search in Google Scholar
[Holbrook, A.L., M.C. Green, and J.A. Krosnick. 2003. “Telephone Versus Face-to-Face Interviewing of National Probability Samples with Long Questionnaires. Comparisons Kirchner: Validating Sensitive Questions 55 of Respondent Satisficing and Social Desirability Response Bias.” Public Opinion Quarterly 67: 79-125. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/346010.10.1086/346010]Search in Google Scholar
[Holbrook, A.L. and J.A. Krosnick. 2010. “Measuring Voter Turnout by Using the Randomized Response Technique: Evidence Calling into Question the Method's Validity.” Public Opinion Quarterly 74: 328-343. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/ nfq012.]Search in Google Scholar
[Holtgraves, T. 2004. “Social Desirability and Self-Reports: Testing Models of Socially Desirable Responding.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30: 161-172. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167203259930.10.1177/014616720325993015030631]Search in Google Scholar
[Horvitz, D.G., B.V. Shah, and W.R. Simmons. 1967. “The Unrelated Question Randomized Response Model.” In Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section. American Statistical Association, 65-72.]Search in Google Scholar
[Höglinger, M., B. Jann, and A. Diekmann. 2014. Sensitive Questions in Online Surveys: An Experimental Evaluation of the Randomized Response Technique and the Crosswise Model. University of Bern Social Science Working Paper No. 9, 1-51. Available at: ftp://repec.sowi.unibe.ch/files/wp9/hoeglinger-jann-diekmann-2014.pdf (accessed September 17, 2014).]Search in Google Scholar
[Jacobebbinghaus, P. and S. Seth. 2007. “The German Integrated Employment Biographies Sample IEBS.” Schmollers Jahrbuch 127: 335-342.10.3790/schm.127.2.335]Search in Google Scholar
[Jann, B. 2011. “Rrlogit: Stata module to estimate logistic regression for randomized response data.” Statistical SoftwareComponents, Boston College Department of Economics. Available at: https://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s456203.html (accessed February 14, 2015).]Search in Google Scholar
[Jann, B., J. Jerke and I. Krumpal. 2012. “Asking Sensitive Questions Using the Crosswise Model. An Experimental Survey Measuring Plagiarism.” Public Opinion Quarterly 71: 32-49. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr036.10.1093/poq/nfr036]Search in Google Scholar
[Kirchner, A. 2014. Techniques for Asking Sensitive Question in Labor Market Surveys. IAB-Bibliothek Dissertationen, 348. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann. Available at: http://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/17192/1/Kirchner_Antje.pdf (accessed February 14, 2015).]Search in Google Scholar
[Kirchner, A., I. Krumpal, M. Trappmann, and H. von Hermanni. 2013. “Messung und Erklärung von Schwarzarbeit in Deutschland - Eine empirische Befragungsstudie unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Problems der sozialen Erwünschtheit.” Zeitschrift für Soziologie 42: 291-314.10.1515/zfsoz-2013-0403]Search in Google Scholar
[Korndörfer, M., I. Krumpal, and S.C. Schmukle. 2014. “Measuring and Explaining Tax Evasion: Improving Self-Reports Using the Crosswise Model.” Journal of Economic Psychology 45: 18-32. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2014.08.001.10.1016/j.joep.2014.08.001]Search in Google Scholar
[Kreuter, F., G. Müller, and M. Trappmann. 2010. “Nonresponse and Measurement Error in Employment Research: Making Use of Administrative Data.” Public Opinion Quarterly 74: 880-906. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfq060.10.1093/poq/nfq060]Search in Google Scholar
[Kreuter, F., G. Müller, and M. Trappmann. 2014. “A Note on Mechanisms Leading to Lower Data Quality of Late or Reluctant Respondents.” Sociological Methods and Research 43: 452-464. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124113508094.10.1177/0049124113508094]Search in Google Scholar
[Krosnick, J.A. 1991. “Response Strategies for Coping with the Cognitive Demands of Attitude Measures in Surveys.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 5: 213-236. DOI: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350050305. 56 Journal of Official Statistics Krumpal, I. 2012. “Estimating the Prevalence of Xenophobia and Anti-Semitism in Germany: A Comparison of Randomized Response and Direct Questioning.” Social Science Research 41: 1387-1403. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.05.015.10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.05.01523017963]Search in Google Scholar
[Kuk, A.Y.C. 1990. “Asking Sensitive Questions Indirectly.” Biometrika 77: 436-438. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biomet/77.2.436.10.1093/biomet/77.2.436]Search in Google Scholar
[Lamb, C.W. and D.E. Stem. 1978. “An Empirical Validation of the Randomized Response Technique.” Journal of Marketing Research 15: 616-621.10.1177/002224377801500411]Search in Google Scholar
[Landsheer, J.A., P.G.M. van der Heijden, and G. van Gils. 1999. “Trust and Understanding. Two Psychological Aspects of Randomized Response. A Study of a Method for Improving the Estimate of Social Security Fraud.” Quality & Quantity 33: 1-12. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1004361819974.10.1023/A:1004361819974]Search in Google Scholar
[Lara, D., S.G. Garcýa, C. Ellertson, C. Camlin, and J. Suárez. 2006. “The Measure of Induced Abortion Levels in Mexico Using Random Response Technique.” Sociological Methods & Research 35: 279-301. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124106 290442.]Search in Google Scholar
[Lara, D., J. Strickler, C.D. Olavarrieta, and C. Ellertson. 2004. “Measuring Induced Abortion in Mexico.” Sociological Methods & Research 32: 529-558. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124103262685.10.1177/0049124103262685]Search in Google Scholar
[Lee, R.M. 1993. Doing Research on Sensitive Topics. London: Sage.]Search in Google Scholar
[Lensvelt-Mulders, G.J.L.M., J.J. Hox, P.G.M. van der Heijden, and C.J.M. Maas. 2005. “Meta-Analysis of Randomized Response Research: Thirty-Five Years of Validation.” Sociological Methods & Research 33: 319-348. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0049124104268664.10.1177/0049124104268664]Search in Google Scholar
[Lensvelt-Mulders, G.J.L.M., J.J. Hox, and P.G.M. Van der Hejden. 2005b. “How to Improve the Efficiency of Randomized Response Designs.” Quality & Quantity 39: 253-265. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11135-004-0432-3.10.1007/s11135-004-0432-3]Search in Google Scholar
[Lensvelt-Mulders, G.J.L.M., P.G.M. Van der Heijden, O. Laudy, and G. van Gils. 2006. “A Validation of Computer-Assisted Randomized Response Survey to Estimate the Prevalence of Undeclared Work in Social Security.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series A) 169: 305-318.10.1111/j.1467-985X.2006.00404.x]Search in Google Scholar
[Locander, W., S. Sudman, and N. Bradburn. 1976. “An Investigation of Interview Method. Threat and Response Distortion.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 71: 269-275. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1976.10480332.10.1080/01621459.1976.10480332]Search in Google Scholar
[Maddala, G.S. 1983. Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511810176]Search in Google Scholar
[Mangat, N.S. 1994. “An Improved Randomized Response Strategy.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series B) 56: 93-95.10.1111/j.2517-6161.1994.tb01962.x]Search in Google Scholar
[Mangat, N.S. and R. Singh. 1990. “An Alternative Randomized Response Procedure.” Biometrika 77: 439-442. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biomet/77.2.439.10.1093/biomet/77.2.439]Search in Google Scholar
[Manzoni, A., J.K. Vermunt, R. Luijkx, and R. Muffels. 2010. “Memory Bias in Retrospectively Collected Employment Careers: A Model-Based Approach to Correct for Measurement Error.” Sociological Methodology 40: 39-73. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-9531.2010.01230.x. Kirchner: Validating Sensitive Questions 57 Mood, C. 2010. “Logistic Regression: Why We Cannot Do What We Think We Can Do, and What We Can Do About it.” European Sociological Review 26: 67-82. DOI: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcp006.10.1093/esr/jcp006]Search in Google Scholar
[Moors, J.J.A. 1971. “Optimization of the Unrelated Randomized Response Model.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 66: 627-629. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/01621459.1971.10482320.10.1080/01621459.1971.10482320]Search in Google Scholar
[Moshagen, M., E.B. Hilbig, E. Erdfelder, and A. Moritz. 2014. “An Experimental Validation Method for Questioning Techniques That Assess Sensitive Issues.” Experimental Psychology 61: 48-54. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/ a000226.]Search in Google Scholar
[Ostapczuk, M., M. Moshagen, Z. Zhao, and J. Musch. 2009. “Assessing Sensitive Attributes Using the Randomized Response Technique: Evidence for the Importance of Response Symmetry.” Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 43: 267-287. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/1076998609332747.10.3102/1076998609332747]Search in Google Scholar
[Ostapczuk, M., J. Musch, and M. Moshagen. 2011. “Improving Self-Report Measures of Medication Non-Adherence Using a Cheating Detection Extension of the Randomized-Response Technique.” Statistical Methods in Medical Research 20: 489-503. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0962280210372843.10.1177/096228021037284320639269]Search in Google Scholar
[Tourangeau, R. and K.A. Rasinski. 1988. “Cognitive Processes Underlying Context Effects in Attitude Measurement.” Psychological Bulletin 103: 299-314. DOI: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.299.10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.299]Search in Google Scholar
[Tourangeau, R., L.J. Rips, and K. Rasinski. 2000. The Psychology of Survey Response.10.1017/CBO9780511819322]Search in Google Scholar
[New York: Cambridge University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Tourangeau, R. and T. Yan. 2007. “Sensitive Questions in Surveys.” Psychological Bulletin 133: 859-883. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.859.10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.859]Search in Google Scholar
[Tracy, P.E. and J.A. Fox. 1981. “The Validity of Randomized Response for Sensitive Measurements.” American Sociological Review 46: 187-200.10.2307/2094978]Search in Google Scholar
[Trappmann, M., S. Gundert, C. Wenzig, and D. Gebhardt. 2010. “PASS: A Household Panel Survey for Research on Unemployment and Poverty.” Schmollers Jahrbuch.10.3790/schm.130.4.609]Search in Google Scholar
[Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften 130: 609-622.]Search in Google Scholar
[Umesh, U.N. and R.A. Peterson. 1991. “A Critical Evaluation of the Randomized Response Method: Applications, Validation, and Research Agenda.” Sociological Methods & Research 20: 104-138. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/004912419 1020001004.]Search in Google Scholar
[Van den Hout, A., U. Böckenholt, and P.G.M. van der Heijden. 2010. “Estimating the Prevalence of Sensitive Behavior and Cheating with Dual Design for Direct Questioning and Randomized Response.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics) 59: 723-736. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9876.]Search in Google Scholar
[2010.00720.x.]Search in Google Scholar
[Van der Heijden, P.G.M., G. van Gils, J. Bouts, and J.J. Hox. 2000. “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.” Sociological Methods & Research 28: 505-537. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124100028004005.10.1177/0049124100028004005]Search in Google Scholar
[58 Journal of Official Statistics Warner, S.L. 1965. “Randomized-Response: A Survey Technique for Eliminating Evasive Answer Bias.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 60: 63-69. DOI: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1965.10480775.10.1080/01621459.1965.10480775]Search in Google Scholar
[Weissman, A.N., R.A. Steer, and D.S. Lipton. 1986. “Estimating Illicit Drug Use Through Telephone Interviews and the Randomized Response Technique.” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 18: 225-233. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0376-8716(86)90054-2.10.1016/0376-8716(86)90054-2]Search in Google Scholar
[Wolter, F. 2012. Heikle Fragen in Interviews. Eine Validierung der Randomized Response-Technik. Springer VS.10.1007/978-3-531-19371-7]Search in Google Scholar
[Wolter, F. and P. Preisendö rfer. 2013. “Asking Sensitive Questions: An Evaluation of the Randomized Response Technique versus Direct Questioning Using Individual Validation Data.” Sociological Methods & Research 42: 321-353. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500474.10.1177/0049124113500474]Search in Google Scholar
[Yu, J.-W., G.L. Tian, and M.L. Tang. 2008. “Two New Models for Survey Sampling With Sensitive Characteristic: Design and Analysis.” Metrika 67: 251-263. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00184-007-0131-x.10.1007/s00184-007-0131-x]Search in Google Scholar
