Dados Bibliográficos

AUTOR(ES) J.J Hox , Peter G.M. van der Heijden , GER van GILS , JAN BOUTS
AFILIAÇÃO(ÕES) Utrecht University, BeleidsOnderzoek en Advies, Nederlands Instituut voor de Publieke Opinie en het Marktonderzoek
ANO 2000
TIPO Artigo
PERIÓDICO Sociological Methods and Research
ISSN 0049-1241
E-ISSN 1552-8294
EDITORA SAGE Publications
DOI 10.1177/0049124100028004005
CITAÇÕES 14
ADICIONADO EM 2025-08-18
MD5 28a86d8fb938ae19a795121c97541cb3

Resumo

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.

Ferramentas