Author:
Gosen Stefanie,Schmidt Peter,Thörner Stefan,Leibold Jürgen
Publisher
Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden
Reference50 articles.
1. Ahart, A. M., and P. R Sackett. 2004. A new method of examining relationships between individual difference measures and sensitive behavior criteria: Evaluating the unmatched count technique. Organizational Research Methods 7: 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428103259557 .
2. Auspurg, K., B. Jann, I. Krumpal, and H. von Hermanni. 2012, June. Randomized-Response-Technik: Hope or Hype? Eine Meta-Analyse unter Berücksichtigung von Publication-Bias [Randomized-response-technique: Hope or hype? A meta-analysis taking into account publication bias]. Paper presented at the First Mini-Conference of the Center of Quantitative Methods of the University of Leipzig. Asking Sensitive Questions: Theory and Data Collection Methods, Leipzig, Germany.
3. Blair, G., and K. Imai. 2012. Statistical analysis of list experiments. Political Analysis 20: 47–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr048 .
4. Chaudhuri, A., and T. C. Christofides. 2007. Item count technique in estimating the proportion of people with a sensitive feature. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 137(2): 589–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspi.2006.01.004 .
5. Coutts, E., and B. Jann. 2011. Sensitive questions in online surveys: Experimental results for the randomized response technique (RRT) and the unmatched count technique (UCT). Sociological Methods & Research 40: 169–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124110390768 .
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献