Detecting Fraudulent Interviewers by Improved Clustering Methods – The Case of Falsifications of Answers to Parts of a Questionnaire

  • 1 University of Giessen, Chair of Industrial Organisation, Regulation and Antitrust, and Chair of Statistics and Econometrics, Licher Strasse 64, 35394 Giessen, Germany.

Abstract

Falsified interviews represent a serious threat to empirical research based on survey data. The identification of such cases is important to ensure data quality. Applying cluster analysis to a set of indicators helps to identify suspicious interviewers when a substantial share of all of their interviews are complete falsifications, as shown by previous research. This analysis is extended to the case when only a share of questions within all interviews provided by an interviewer is fabricated. The assessment is based on synthetic datasets with a priori set properties. These are constructed from a unique experimental dataset containing both real and fabricated data for each respondent. Such a bootstrap approach makes it possible to evaluate the robustness of the method when the share of fabricated answers per interview decreases. The results indicate a substantial loss of discriminatory power in the standard cluster analysis if the share of fabricated answers within an interview becomes small. Using a novel cluster method which allows imposing constraints on cluster sizes, performance can be improved, in particular when only few falsifiers are present. This new approach will help to increase the robustness of survey data by detecting potential falsifiers more reliably.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Althöfer, I. and K.-U. Koschnik. 1991. “On the Convergence of Threshold Accepting.” Applied Mathematics and Optimization 24: 183–195. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01447741.

  • Baragona, R., F. Battaglia, and I. Poli. 2011. Evolutionary Statistical Procedures. Statistics and Computing. Heidelberg: Springer.

  • Bredl, S., N. Storfinger, and N. Menold. 2013. “A Literature Review of Methods to Detect Fabricated Survey Data.” In Interviewers’ Deviations in Surveys - Impact, Reasons, Detection and Prevention, edited by P. Winker, N. Menold, and R. Porst, 3–24. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

  • Bredl, S., P. Winker, and K. Kötschau. 2012. “A Statistical Approach to Detect Interviewer Falsification of Survey Data.” Survey Methodology 38: 1–10.

  • Crespi, L. 1945. “The Cheater Problem in Polling.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 9: 431–445.

  • De Haas, S. and P. Winker. 2014. “Identification of Partial Falsifications in Survey Data.” Statistical Journal of the IAOS 30: 271–281. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/SJI-140834.

  • Efron, B. 1979. “Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the Jackknife.” The Annals of Statistics 7: 1–26. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344552.

  • Efron, B. 1982. The Jackknife, the Bootstrap, and Other Resampling Plans. CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics, vol. 38. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611970319.

  • Finn, A. and V. Ranchhod. 2013. “Genuine Fakes: The Prevalence and Implications of Fieldworker Fraud in a Large South African Survey.” SALDRU Working Papers 115, Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit, University of Cape Town. Available at: http://ideas.repec.org/p/ldr/wpaper/115.html (accessed October 22, 2015).

  • Forsman, G. and I. Schreiner. 1991. “The Design and Analysis of Reinterview: An Overview.” In Measurement Errors in Surveys, edited by P. Biemer, R. Groves, L. Lyberg, N. Mathiowetz, and S. Sudman, 279–301. Chichester: Wiley. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118150382.ch15.

  • Gilli, M., D. Maringer, and E. Schumann. 2011. Numerical Methods and Optimization in Finance. Waltham, MA: Academic Press.

  • Gwartney, P. 2013. “Mischief Versus Mistakes: Motivating Interviewers to not Deviate.” In Interviewers’ Deviations in Surveys - Impact, Reasons, Detection and Prevention, edited by P. Winker, N. Menold, and R. Porst, 195–215. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

  • Hood, C. and M. Bushery. 1997. “Getting More Bang from the Reinterviewer Buck: Identifying ‘at Risk’ Interviewers.” In Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section: American Statistical Association, August 10th to 14th 1997, Anaheim, CA, 820 – 824. Available at: https://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/Proceedings/papers/1997_141.pdf (accessed October 22, 2015).

  • Kemper, C. and N. Menold. 2014. “Nuisance or Remedy? The Utility of Stylistic Responding as an Indicator of Data Fabrication in Surveys.” Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 10: 92–99. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000078.

  • Kemper, C., V. Trofimow, B. Rammstedt, and N. Menold. 2011. “Indicators for the ex post Detection of Faking in Survey Data Constructed from Responses to the Big Five Inventory-10 (BFI-10).” Poster presented at the 11th European Conference on Psychological Assessment, date of conference, Riga, Latvia. Available at: http://www.ecpa11.lu.lv/files/KemperChristoph.pdf (accessed October 22, 2015).

  • Krosnick, J. and D. Alwin. 1987. “An Evaluation of a Cognitive Theory of Response Order Effects in Survey Measurement.” Public Opinion Quarterly 51: 201–219. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/269029.

  • Matthews, B. 1975. “Comparison of the Predicted and Observed Secondary Structure of t4 Phage Lysozyme.” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 405: 442–451. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0005-2795(7590109-9).

  • Menold, N. and C. Kemper. 2014. “How Do Real and Falsified Data Differ? Psychology of Survey Response as a Source of Falsification Indicators in Face-to-Face Surveys.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 26: 41–65. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edt017.

  • Menold, N., P. Winker, N. Storfinger, and C. Kemper. 2013. “A Method for ex-post Identification of Falsifications in Survey Data.” In Interviewers’ Deviations in Surveys – Impact, Reasons, Detection and Prevention, edited by P. Winker, N. Menold, and R. Porst, 25–47. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

  • Messick, S. 1967. “The Psychology of Acquiescence, an Interpretation of Research Evidence.” In Response Set in Personality Assessment, edited by I. Berg. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.1966.tb00357.x.

  • Porras, J. and N. English. 2004. “Data-Driven Approaches to Identifying Interviewer Data Falsification: The Case of Health Surveys.” In Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section: American Statistical Association, August 8th to 12th 2004, Toronto, 4223–4228. Available at: http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/Proceedings/y2004/files/Jsm2004-000879.pdf (accessed October 23, 2015).

  • Reuband, K.-H. 1990. “Interviews, die keine sind, ‘Erfolge’ und ‘Mißerfolge’ beim Fälschen von Interviews.” Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 42: 706–733.

  • Schäfer, C., J. Schräpler, K. Müller, and G. Wagner. 2005. “Automatic Identification of Faked and Fraudulent Interviews in the German SOEP.” Schmollers Jahrbuch 125: 183–193.

  • Storfinger, N. and M. Opper. 2011. “Datenbasierte Indikatoren für potentiell abweichendes Interviewerverhalten.” Discussion Paper 58, ZEU, September 2011, Giessen. Available at: http://geb.uni-giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2012/8559/pdf/ZeuDiscPap58.pdf (accessed October 23, 2015).

  • Storfinger, N. and P. Winker. 2013. “Assessing the Performance of Clustering Methods in Falsification Using Bootstrap.” In Interviewers’ Deviations in Surveys - Impact, Reasons, Detection and Prevention, edited by P. Winker, N. Menold, and R. Porst, 49–65. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

  • Tourangeau, R., K. Rasinski, J. Jobe, B. Jared, T. Smith, and W. Pratt. 1997. “Sources of Error in a Survey on Sexual Behavior.” Journal of Official Statistics 13: 341–365.

  • Verbiest, N., K. Vermeulen, and A. Teresdai. 2015. “Evaluation of Classification Methods.” In Data Classification – Algorithms and Applications, edited by C. Aggarwal, 633–655. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

  • Winker, P. 2001. Optimization Heuristics in Econometrics: Applications of Threshold Accepting. Chichester: Wiley.

OPEN ACCESS

Journal + Issues

Search