The Item Count Technique as a Method of Indirect Questioning: A Review of Its Development and a Case Study Application

By Judith A. Droitcour, Rachel Caspar, M. L. Hubbard, T. Parsley, W. Visscher, T. Ezzati. 2011

181 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/750c2291b76f55097f730b33357a6ec8572a98a3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Statistical Analysis of List Experiments (2012, methodology): “…as the item count technique (Miller 1984) or unmatched count technique (Dalton, Wimbush, and Daily 1994) and has been applied in a variety of disciplines (see, e.g.,Droitcour et al. 1991; Wimbush and Dalton 1997; LaBrie and Earleywine 2000; Rayburn, Earleywine, and Davison 2003among many others).”
Complete anonymity compromises the accuracy of self-reports (2012, methodology): “Tools such as the item count technique (Droitcour et al., 1991; Holbrook & Krosnick, 2010), the bogus pipeline (Jones & Sigall, 1971), the randomized response technique (Fox & Tracy, 1986; Himmelfarb & Lickteig, 1982; Lensvelt-Mulders, Hox, Van Der Heijden, & Maas, 2005; Warner, 1965), or simply…”
What Can We Learn with Statistical Truth Serum?Design and Analysis of the List Experiment (2013, methodology): “Droitcour et al. (1991) shows that we can present the sensitive item to all respondents by using two baseline lists.”
Multivariate Regression Analysis for the Item Count Technique (2011, methodology): “As an empirical illustration, the proposed methodology is applied to the 1991 National Race and Politics survey where the investigators used the item count technique to measure the degree of racial hatred in the United States.”
Randomizing Religion: the Impact of Protestant Evangelism on Economic Outcomes* (2020, unknown): “” These last two binary indicators are elicited using list randomization, a technique for eliciting responses to sensitive questions that conceals any given individual’s response from the interviewer (Droitcour et al. 2011; Karlan and Zinman 2012).”
Using the Predicted Responses from List Experiments as Explanatory Variables in Regression Models (2015, methodology): “For example, one can generalize this method to other designs of list experiments such as double list experiments (Droitcour et al. 1991; Glynn 2013) or other indirect questioning methods such as endorsement experiments (Bullock, Imai, and Shapiro 2011) and randomized response methods (Warner 1965; B”
List Randomization for Sensitive Behavior: An Application for Measuring Use of Loan Proceeds (2012, background): “As a result of this dilemma, list randomization often produces results that are too high in variance to be statistically significant, especially if the behavior of interest is low prevalence (which it often is, since high prevalence behaviors are typically not that sensitive in the first place) (Dro”
Field Experiments on Discrimination (2016, background): “This adverse effect on minority candidates is the exact opposite effect to what policymakers had hoped, and a surprising result given existing evidence from correspondence testing in France (Duguet et al., 2010), which shows discrimination against minority candidates for some jobs, no discrimination”