Comparing the unmatched count technique and direct self-report for sensitive health-risk behaviors in HIV+ adults

Arentoft, Alyssa; Dyk, Kathleen Van; Thames, April D.; Sayegh, Philip; Thaler, Nicholas S.; Schonfeld, Daniel; LaBrie, Joseph W.; Hinkin, Charles H.

doi:10.1080/09540121.2015.1090538

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In our study, LR responses neither corresponded strongly with known actual answers with regard to HIV status and HIV testing refusal, nor were closer to known actual answers than standard direct questionnaires. Our results agree with recent findings from A Arentoft, et al [ 13 ], which similarly did not find that list randomization improved estimates over direct questioning. The failure of our implementation of LR to improve elicitation of sensitive information in surveys highlights the inherent complexity of this and other related methods, suggesting that researchers should be cautious when using them in the field.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…There is limited evidence of whether LR improves self-reported elicitation of sensitive behaviors with validation against known truths in public health, with mixed results [ 10 – 13 ]. In HIV, A Arentoft, et al [ 13 ] found that LR yielded lower estimates of negatively stigmatized behaviors in HIV+ patients compared with directly asked questions, counter to their initial hypothesis. While this study used a proxy for known truth by directly observing adherence data after the survey was completed, they did not directly observe the retrospective adherence behavior asked about in the survey.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

List randomization for eliciting HIV status and sexual behaviors in rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: a randomized experiment using known true values for validation

Haber

Harling

Cohen

et al. 2018

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundList randomization (LR), a survey method intended to mitigate biases related to sensitive true/false questions, has received recent attention from researchers. However, tests of its validity are limited, with no study comparing LR-elicited results with individually known truths. We conducted a test of LR for HIV-related responses in a high HIV prevalence setting in KwaZulu-Natal. By using researcher-known HIV serostatus and HIV test refusal data, we were able to assess how LR and direct questionnaires perform against individual known truth.MethodsParticipants were recruited from the participation list from the 2016 round of the Africa Health Research Institute demographic surveillance system, oversampling individuals who were HIV positive. Participants were randomized to two study arms. In Arm A, participants were presented five true/false statements, one of which was the sensitive item, the others non-sensitive. Participants were then asked how many of the five statements they believed were true. In Arm B, participants were asked about each statement individually. LR estimates used data from both arms, while direct estimates were generated from Arm B alone. We compared elicited responses to HIV testing and serostatus data collected through the demographic surveillance system.ResultsWe enrolled 483 participants, 262 (54%) were randomly assigned to Arm A, and 221 (46%) to Arm B. LR estimated 56% (95% CI: 40 to 72%) of the population to be HIV-negative, compared to 47% (95% CI: 39 to 54%) using direct estimates; the population-estimate of the true value was 32% (95% CI: 28 to 36%). LR estimates yielded HIV test refusal percentages of 55% (95% CI: 37 to 73%) compared to 13% (95% CI: 8 to 17%) by direct estimation, and 15% (95% CI: 12 to 18%) based on observed past behavior.ConclusionsIn this context, LR performed poorly when compared to known truth, and did not improve estimates over direct questioning methods when comparing with known truth. These results may reflect difficulties in implementation or comprehension of the LR approach, which is inherently complex. Adjustments to delivery procedures may improve LR’s usefulness. Further investigation of the cognitive processes of participants in answering LR surveys is warranted.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0507-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

List randomization for eliciting HIV status and sexual behaviors in rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: a randomized experiment using known true values for validation

Haber

Harling

Cohen

et al. 2018

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the other two methodologies are increasingly different from this straighrorward assessment. One uses the unmatched count technique, an indirect es4mate aimed at reducing social desirability response bias (Arentol et al, 2016) (see Method for details). The second generates an indirect es4mate of the popula4on size of QRP users by using social network informa4on from the general popula4on of psychologists (Jing et al, 2014;McCormick et al, 2010;Salganik et al, 2011;Zheng et al, 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Better Understanding the Population Size and Stigmatization of Psychologists Using Questionable Research Practices

Fox¹,

Honeycutt²,

Jussim³

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has been low confidence in the replicability and reproducibility of published psychological findings. Previous work has demonstrated that a popula4on of psychologists exists that have used ques4onable research prac4ces (QRPs), or behaviors during data collec4on, analysis, and publica4on that can increase the number of false-posi4ve findings in the scien4fic literature.The present work sought to es4mate the current size of the QRP using popula4on of American psychologists and to iden4fy if this sub-popula4on of scien4sts is s4gma4zed. Using a direct es4mator, we es4mate 18.8% of American psychologists have used at least one QRP in the past 12 months. This es4mate rises to 24.40% when using the generalized network scale up es4mator, an es4ma4ng method that u4lizes the academic social networks of par4cipants.Furthermore, a[tudes of psychologists towards QRP users, and observed behavioral data collected from self-reported QRP users suggest that QRP users are a s4gma4zed sub-popula4on of psychologists. Together, these findings provide be#er insight into how many psychologists use ques4onable prac4ces and how they exist in the social environment.

show abstract

“…For this reason, two other estimating methods will be used. One is the unmatched count technique, an indirect estimate aimed to reduce social desirability bias by removing the requirement for participants to identify as QRP users to the researchers (Arentoft et al, 2016). The second estimator generates an indirect estimate of QRP use by using social network information from the general population of psychologists (Jing, Qu, Yu, Wang, & Cui, 2014;Zhang et al, 2010;Zheng, Salganik, & Gelman, 2006).…”

Section: Prevalencementioning

confidence: 99%

Scientist as Subject: How Researcher Behaviors Influence Psychological Knowledge

Fox¹

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interacting with the published literature ("knowledge consumption") and publishing new scientific findings ("knowledge production") are two key moments in the scientist's search for truth, and bias in either of these can distort what is known about an area of research. This dissertation details three studies conducted on researchers in psychology that together provide evidence of scientists' behaviors influencing these key moments of knowledge production and knowledge consumption. Methods:Psychologists were recruited to participate in each study (N = 215 and N = 587).Studies used custom web tools and social network methods to collect unique datasets on psychologists' social networks and how they approach the scientific literature. The analytic approach differed based on each study. For studies on knowledge consumption, Gini coefficients and measures of unpredictability were calculated to better understand the dynamics of the published literature. For studies on knowledge production, the generalized network scale up method was used to estimate the size of the population of iii current users of questionable research practices, and regression was used to better understand the relationship between attitudes and stigma against certain psychologists. Results:Chapter 1: Overview and IntroductionHistorians don't want to write a history of historians. They are quite happy to plunge endlessly into limitless historical detail. But they themselves don't want to be counted as part of the limitless historical detail. They don't want to be part of the historical order. It's as if doctors didn't want to fall ill and die. Charles Péguy, L'Argent, suiteFrench sociologist Pierre Bourdieu starts his 1988 book, Homo Academicus, with the above quote from poet and essayist Charles Péguy, commenting on the preference of the researcher to stand apart from what they research. Bourdieu's theoretical investigation of the academic world at a time of unrest and change (the 1968 University of Paris protests) presents to the reader the academy as an object for study. In doing so, Bourdieu brings the researcher into full display and argues that the authority and objectivity central to an academic's success is not inherent to the individual, but the result of the academic's position in the power structures of academia (Bourdieu, 1988).In writing his book, Bourdieu aimed to "exoticize the domestic", asking scholars to critically engage with the academic world they inhabit and to question what drives their research questions, methods, and conclusions. Was objective curiosity the sole driver of inquiry, or was research shaped by the influences of academic power and conformity? In order to promote radical change in academic standards and research, Bourdieu asked his peers to honestly reflect on their position of power, the production and consumption of knowledge, and their role in the validation of that knowledge (Forte, 2015).

show abstract

Comparing the unmatched count technique and direct self-report for sensitive health-risk behaviors in HIV+ adults

Cited by 8 publications

References 15 publications

List randomization for eliciting HIV status and sexual behaviors in rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: a randomized experiment using known true values for validation

List randomization for eliciting HIV status and sexual behaviors in rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: a randomized experiment using known true values for validation

Better Understanding the Population Size and Stigmatization of Psychologists Using Questionable Research Practices

Scientist as Subject: How Researcher Behaviors Influence Psychological Knowledge

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About