Estimating the prevalence of negative attitudes towards people with disability: a comparison of direct questioning, projective questioning and randomised response

References

• Antonak RF, Livneh, H. Randomized-Response Technique: a review and proposed extension to disability attitude research. Genet Soc Gen Psychol Monogr 1995a;121:99–145.
   Google Scholar
• Antonak R, Livneh H. Direct and indirect methods to measure attitudes toward persons with disabilities, with an exegesis of the error choice test method. Rehabil Psychol 1995b;40:3–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antonak RF, Livneh H. Measurement of attitudes towards persons with disabilities. Disabil Rehabil 2000;22:211–224.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deal M. Disabled people's attitudes toward other impairment groups: a hierarchy of impairments. Disabil Soc 2003;18:897–910.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strike DL, Skovholt TM, Hummel TJ. Mental health professionals' disability competence: measuring self-awareness, perceived knowledge, and perceived skills. Rehabil Psychol 2004;49:321–327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yazbeck M, McVilly K, Parmenter TR. Attitudes toward people with intellectual disabilities: an Australian perspective. J Disabil Pol Stud 2004;15:97–111.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards AL. The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. New York: Dryden; 1957.
   Google Scholar
• Hyman H. Do they tell the truth? Public Opin Q 1994;8:557–559.
   Google Scholar
• Lee RM. Doing research on sensitive topics. London: Sage; 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Pauls CA, Crost NW. Effects of faking on self-deception and impression management scales. Pers Individ Dif 2004;37:1137–1151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tourangeau R, Yan T. Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychol Bull 2007;133:859–883.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuker HE, Block JR, Young JH. The measurement of attitudes toward disabled persons (Rehabilitation Series No. 3). Albertson: Human Resources Center; 1970.
   Google Scholar
• Hagler P, Vargo J, Semple J. The potential for faking on the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale. Rehabil Couns Bull 1987;31:72–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weisel A, Kravetz S, Florian V, Shurka-Zernitsky E. The structure of attitudes toward persons with disabilities: an Israeli validation of Siller's Disability Factor Scales-General (DFS-G). Rehabil Psychol 1998;33:227–238.
   Google Scholar
• Freud S. Totem and taboo. In: Brill AA, editor. The basic writings of Sigmund Freud. New York: Random House; 1938. pp 807–930.
   Google Scholar
• Kassarjian HH. Projective methods. In: Ferber R, editor. Handbook of marketing research. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1974. pp 85–100.
   Google Scholar
• Alpert M. Identification of determinant attributes: a comparison of methods. J Market Res 1971;8:184–191.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith GH. Motivation research in advertising and marketing. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1954.
   Google Scholar
• Simon RJ, Simon JL. The effect of money incentives on family size: a hypothetical-question study. Public Opin Q 1974;38:585–595.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher RJ. Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. J Consum Res 1993;20:303–315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saenger G, Gilbert E. Customer reactions to the integration of Negro sales personnel. Int J Opin Attit Res 1950;4:57–76.
   Google Scholar
• Weitz J, Nuckols RC. The validity of direct and indirect questions in measuring job satisfaction. Pers Psychol 1953;6:387–394.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jo M-S, Nelson JE, Kiecker P. A model for controlling social desirability bias by direct and indirect questioning. Mark Lett 1987;8:429–437.
   Google Scholar
• Aron E, Thouvenot J, Martin A, Barus J, Tajan A. La vocation médicale: Enquête auprès de 239 étudiants de 1er année. (The medical profession: A study of 239 1st year students.) Annales Médico-Psychologiques 1968;2:493–504.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yesalis CE, Courson SP. Anabolic steroid use among self-selected sample of NFL players. In: Courson S, Schreiber LR, editors. False glory: steelers and steroids. The Steve Courson story. Stamford: Longmeadow; 1991. pp 205–215.
   Google Scholar
• Davoli M, Perucci CA, Sangalli M, Brancato G, Dell’ Uomo G. Reliability of sexual behavior data among high school students in Rome. Epidemiol 1992;3:531–535.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snir R, Harpaz I. To work or not to work: non-financial employment commitment and the social desirability bias. J Soc Psychol 2002;142:635–644.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray HA, Morgan CD. A clinical study of sentiments. Genet Psychol Monogr 1945;32:3–311.
   Google Scholar
• Miller JD. The nominative technique: a new method of estimating heroin prevalence. In: Rouse BA, Kozel NJ, Richards LG, editors. Self-report methods of estimating drug use. Meeting current challenges to validity. Washington: Government Printing Office; 1985. pp 104–124.
   Google Scholar
• Marks G, Miller N. Ten years of research on the false-consensus effect: an empirical and theoretical review. Psychol Bull 1987;107:77–90.
   Google Scholar
• Lewicki P. Self-image bias in person perception. J Pers Soc Psychol 1983;45:384–393.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svenson O. Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers? Acta Psychol 1981;47:143–148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Judd CM, Smith ER, Kidder LH. Research methods in social relations. 6th ed. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers; 1986.
   Google Scholar
• Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. Attitudes and persuasion: classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque: William C. Brown; 1981.
   Google Scholar
• Warner SL. Randomized response: a survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. J Am Stat Assoc 1965;60:63–69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawes RM, Moore M. Die Guttman-Skalierung orthodoxer und randomisierter Reaktionen. (Guttman scaling of orthodox and randomised reactions). In: Petermann F, editor. Einstellungsmessung, Einstellungsforschung (Attitude measurement, attitude research). Göttingen: Hogrefe; 1980. pp 117–133.
   Google Scholar
• Greenberg BG, Abul-Ela A-LA, Simmons WR, Horvitz DG. The unrelated question randomized response model. Theoretical framework. J Am Stat Assoc 1969;64:520–539.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lensvelt-Mulders G, Hox J, van der Heijden P, Maas C. Meta-analysis of randomized-response research. Thirty-five years of validation. Socio Meth Res 2005;33:319–348.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Umesh UN, Peterson RA. A critical evaluation of the randomized response method. Socio Methods Res 1991;20:104–138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nathan G. A bibliography on randomized response: 1965–1987. Surv Methodol 1988;14:331–346.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell AA. Randomized response technique. Science 1987;236:1049.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lensvelt-Mulders GJLM, Boeije HR. Evaluating compliance with a computer assisted randomized response technique: a qualitative study into the origins of lying and cheating. Comput Human Behav 2007;23:591–608.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stem DE, Steinhorst RK. Telephone interview and mail questionnaire applications of the randomized response model. J Am Stat Assoc 1984;74:555–564.
   Google Scholar
• Clark SJ, Desharnais RA. Honest answers to embarrassing questions: detecting cheating in the randomized response model. Psychol Meth 1998;3:160–168.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostapczuk M, Musch J, Moshagen M. A randomized-response investigation of the education effect in attitudes towards foreigners. Eur J Soc Psychol 2009;39:920–931.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu X, Batchelder WH. The statistical analysis of general processing tree models with the EM algorithm. Psychometrika 1994;59:21–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riefer DM, Batchelder WH. Multinomial modeling and the measurement of cognitive processes. Psychol Rev 1988;95:318–339.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bégin G, Boivin M. Comparison of data gathered on sensitive questions via direct questionnaire, randomized response technique, and a projective method. Psychol Rep 1980;47:743–750.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armacost RL, Hosseini JC, Morris SA, Rehbein KA. An empirical comparison of direct questioning, scenario, and randomized response methods for obtaining sensitive business information. Dec Sci 1991;22:1073–1090.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Musch J, Brockhaus R, Bröder A. Ein Inventar zur Erfassung von zwei Faktoren sozialer Erwünschtheit. [An inventory for the assessment of two factors of social desirability] Diagnostica 2002;48:121–129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paulhus DL. Paulhus Deception Scales (PDS): the balanced inventory of desirable responding-7 user's manual. North Tonawanda/Toronto: Multi-Health Systems; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Gething L. Generality vs. specificity of attitudes towards people with disabilities. Br J Med Psychol 1991;64:55–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kulka RA, Weeks MF, Folsom RE. A comparison of the randomized response approach and direct questioning approach to asking sensitive survey questions. Working paper, Research Triangle Institute, North Carolina; 1981.
   Google Scholar
• Stahl C, Klauer KC. HMMTree: A computer program for hierarchical multinomial processing tree models. Behav Res Meth 2007;39:267–273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckwith JB, Matthews JM. Measuring comfort in interacting with people with intellectual disabilities. Aus J Psychol 1994;46:53–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loo R. Attitudes toward employing persons with disabilities: A test of the sympathy-discomfort categories. J App Soc Psychol 2004;34:2200–2214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldman DB, Crandall CS. Dimensions of mental illness stigma: what about mental illness causes social rejection? J Soc Clin Psychol 2007;26:137–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tringo JL. The hierarchy of preference toward disability groups. JSpec Educ 1970;4:295–306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rittenhouse BE. A novel compliance assessment technique. The randomized response interview. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996a;12:498–510.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rittenhouse BE. Respondent-specific information from the randomized response interview: compliance assessment. J Clin Epidemiol 1996b;49:545–549.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maddala GS. Limited dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1983.
   Google Scholar
• van der Heijden PGM, van Gils G, Bouts J, Hox JJ. A comparison of randomized response, computer-assisted self-interview, and face-to-face direct questioning. Eliciting sensitive information in the context of welfare and unemployment benefit. Socio Methods Res 2000;28:505–537.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lensvelt-Mulders GJLM, Hox JJ, van der Heijden PGM. How to improve the efficiency of randomized response designs. Qual Quant 2005;39:253–265.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar