Theory and Methods: Estimation of Stigmatized Characteristics of a Hidden Gang in a Finite Population

Abstract

This paper considers the problem of estimating the size and mean value of a stigmatized quantitative character of a hidden gang in a finite population. The proposed method may be applied to solve domestic problems in a particular country or across countries: for example, a government may be interested in estimating the average income of victims or perpetrators of domestic violence. The proposed method is based on the technique introduced by Warner (1965) to estimate the proportion of a sensitive attribute in a finite population without threatening the privacy of the respondents. Expressions for the bias and variance of the proposed estimators are given, to a first order of approximation. Circumstances in which the method can be applied are studied and illustrated using a numerical example.

On Bayesian Analysis of a General Class of Randomized Response Models In Social Surveys about Stigmatized Traits

“…It makes the interviewees less likely to give a false answer. Several research workers, such as Greenberg et al [4], Moors [11], Folsom et al [25], Mangat [20], Singh and Horn [28], and Christofides [29], have contributed to the further development of the Warner [27] model. The interested readers may refer to Chaudhuri and Mukerjee [1], Tracy and Mangat [5], Perri [23], Yu et al [14], Hussain and Shabbir [31,32,33 and 34], Odumade and Singh [22] and the references listed therein.…”

New Stratified Bayesian Estimators Using Warner’s Randomized Response Technique Through Mixed Priors

“…To tackle this issue, Warner [1] introduced a clever technique of survey to gather information about sensitive characteristic by ensuring confidentiality and anonymity to the respondents. To date, many developments and variants of Warner's Randomized Response Technique were developed by different researchers [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Interested readers may also see the articles [9][10][11][12] for some more literatures on the topic.…”

Detecting Untruthful Answering in Randomized Response Sampling

“…Some recent modifications to the model has been suggested by Kuk (1990), Mangat and Singh (1990), Mangat and Singh (1991), Mangat (1994), Mangat et al (1995aMangat et al ( ,b, 1997, Mahmood et al (1998), Singh et al (1998), Tracy and Mangat (1998), Bhargava and Singh (2000), Chua and Tsui (2000), Singh et al (2000), Chang and Huang (2001) and Chaudhuri (2001), etc. In addition to theoretical developments, some comparative researches have shown that RR techniques generally result in more valid responses, see, for example, Umesh and Peterson (1991), Scheers (1992), Hosseini and Armacost (1993), Kerkvliet (1994), Singh et al (1996), Landsheer et al (1999 and Van der Heijden (2000).…”