The Effects of Microsuppression on State Education Data Quality

References

• Arizona Department of Education. (2020). Data management. https://www.azed.gov/data/
   Google Scholar
• Bonnéry, D., Feng, Y., Henneberger, A. K., Johnson, T. L., Lachowicz, M., Rose, B. A., Shaw, T., Stapleton, L. M., Woolley, M. E., & Zheng, Y. (2019). The promise and limitations of synthetic data as a strategy to expand access to state-level multi-agency longitudinal data. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 12(4), 616–647. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2019.1631421
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Conaway, C., Keesler, V., & Schwartz, N. (2015). What research do state education agencies really need? The promise and limitations of state longitudinal data systems. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(1_suppl), 16S–28S. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373715576073
   Google Scholar
• Delaware Department of Education. (2020). Data privacy, redaction. https://www.doe.k12.de.us/Page/3024
   Google Scholar
• Domingo-Ferrer, J., & Torra, V. (2005). Ordinal, continuous and heterogeneous k-anonymity through microaggregation. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 11(2), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10618-005-0007-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Domingo-Ferrer, J., & Mateo-Sanz, J. M. (2002). Practical data-oriented microaggregation for statistical disclosure control. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 14(1), 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1109/69.979982
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drechsler, J., Bender, S., & Rässler, S. (2008). Comparing fully and partially synthetic datasets for statistical disclosure control in the german IAB establishment panel. Transactions on Data Privacy, 1(3), 105–130.
   Google Scholar
• Duncan, G. T., & Lambert, D. (1986). Disclosure-limited data dissemination. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81(393), 10–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1986.10478229
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan, G. T., & Lambert, D. (1989). The risk of disclosure for microdata. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 7, 207–217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelman, A., & Carlin, J. B. (2002). Poststratification and weighting adjustments. In R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge, & R. J. A. Little (Eds.), Survey nonresponse (pp. 289–302). Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Glynn, R. J., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1986). Selection modeling versus mixture modeling with nonignorable nonresponse. In H. Wainer (Ed.), Drawing inferences from self-selected samples (pp. 115–142). Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Guittet, L., Giraudeau, B., & Ravaud, P. (2005). A priori postulated and real power in cluster randomized trials: Mind the gap. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 5, 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-5-25
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hedges, L. V. (2007). Effect sizes in cluster-randomized designs. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 32(4), 341–370. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998606298043
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herzog, T. N., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). Using multiple imputations to handle nonresponse in sample surveys. In W. G. Madow, I. Olkin, & D. B. Rubin (Eds.), Incomplete data in sample surveys (vol. 2, pp. 209–245). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, C. J., Bloom, H. S., Black, A. R., Lipsey, M. W. (2007). Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research. MDRC working papers on research methodology. https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_84.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Honig, M., & Coburn, C. (2008). Evidence-based decision making in school district central offices. Educational Policy, 22(4), 578–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904807307067
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hundepool, A., Spicer, K., Franconi, L., Schulte Nordholt, E., Domingo-Ferrer, J., de Wolf, P., & Giessing, S. (2012). Statistical disclosure control. Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Illinois Longitudinal Data System. (2020). https://www.illinoisworknet.com/ILDS/Pages/default.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, C. (2007). Safeguarding against and responding to the breach of personally identifiable information. Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Agencies. U.S. Office of Management and Budget.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, J. P., Golden, B. L., & Assad, A. A. (1992). Cell suppression: Disclosure protection for sensitive tabular data. Networks, 22(4), 397–417. https://doi.org/10.1002/net.3230220407
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korendijk, E., Moerbeek, M., & Maas, C. (2010). The robustness of designs for trials with nested data against incorrect initial intracluster correlation coefficient estimates. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 35(5), 566–585. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998609360774
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levesque, K., Fitzgerald, R., & Pfeiffer, J. (2015). A guide to using state longitudinal data for applied research. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance Report # NCEE 2015–4013. U.S. Institute for Education Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Little, R. J. A., Liu, F., & Raghunathan, T. E. (2004). Statistical disclosure techniques based on multiple imputation. In W. A. Shewhart, S. S. Wilks, A. Gelman, & X. Meng (Eds.), Applied Bayesian modeling and causal inference from incomplete‐data perspectives. Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Lohr, S. L. (2010). Sampling: Design and analysis (2nd ed.). MassBrooks/Cole.
   Google Scholar
• Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2014). Researcher’s guide to Massachusetts state education data. http://sites.bu.edu/miccr/files/2015/12/Researcher-Guide-to-Massachusetts-State-Education-Data.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Matthews, G. J., & Harel, O. (2011). Data confidentiality: A review of methods for statistical disclosure limitation and methods for assessing privacy. Statistics Surveys, 5(0), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1214/11-SS074
   Google Scholar
• Matthews, G. J., Harel, O., & Aseltine, R. H. (2017). A review of statistical disclosure control techniques employed by web-based data query systems. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice : JPHMP, 23(4), e1–e4. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000000473
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montana Office of Public Instruction. (2018). Montana’s consolidated state plan under the Every Student Succeeds Act. http://opi.mt.gov/Portals/182/PageFiles/ESSA/GoodbyeNCLB,HelloESSA/AccessibleESSASubmissionJan2018UpdatedDate.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Nebraska Department of Education. (2013). Data access and use policy and procedures including research and evaluations. https://2x9dwr1yq1he1dw6623gg411-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Nebraska_Data_Access_and_Use_Policy_and_Procedures.pdf
   Google Scholar
• North Carolina Department of Education. (2009). Data management group policy: Reporting on data in small cells or extremes. http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/data/management/policies/security/dmg-2009-004-se.pdf
   Google Scholar
• North Carolina Department of Education. (2020). School report cards. https://www.dpi.nc.gov/data-reports/school-report-cards
   Google Scholar
• Ohno-Machado, L., Vinterbo, S., & Dreiseitl, S. (2002). Effects of data anonymization by cell suppression on descriptive statistics and predictive modeling performance. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 9(90061), 115S–s119. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M1241
   Google Scholar
• Oregon Department of Education. (2016). A summary to the Legislature of the annual report to the Legislature on English language learners 2014–2015 Oregon Department of Education. https://www.oregon.gov/ode/reports-and-data/LegReports/Documents/ell-report-summary-1415-final.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Peoples, A. D.(2018). Systematic data redaction using Microsoft SQL server: Effectively protecting individual privacy using computers instead of humans. Delaware Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Raghunathan, T. E., Reiter, J. P., & Rubin, D. B. (2003). Multiple imputation for statistical disclosure limitation. Journal of Official Statistics, 19(1), 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Reiter, J. P. (2004). Simultaneous use of multiple imputation for missing data and disclosure limitation. Survey Methodology, 30, 235–242.
   Google Scholar
• Reiter, J. P. (2005a). Estimating risks of identification disclosure in microdata. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100(472), 1103–1112. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214505000000619
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reiter, J. P. (2005b). Releasing multiply-imputed, synthetic public use microdata: An illustration and empirical study. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 168(1), 185–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2004.00343.x
   Google Scholar
• Reiter, J. P. (2019). Differential privacy and federal data releases. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 6(1), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-statistics-030718-105142
   Google Scholar
• Reiter, J. P., Oganian, A., & Karr, A. F. (2009). Verification servers: Enabling analysts to assess the quality of inferences from public use data. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 53(4), 1475–1482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2008.10.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reiter, J. P., & Raghunathan, T. E. (2007). The multiple adaptations of multiple imputation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 102(480), 1462–1471. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214507000000932
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samarati, P. (2001). Protecting respondents identities in microdata release. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 13(6), 1010–1027. https://doi.org/10.1109/69.971193
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samarati, P., & L. Sweeney. (1998). k-anonymity: A model for protecting privacy. Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy (S&P).
   Google Scholar
• Schochet, P. Z. (2020). Analyzing grouped administrative data for RCTs using design-based methods. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 45(1), 32–57. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998619855350
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seastrom, M. (2010). Statistical methods for protecting personally identifiable information in aggregate reporting. SLDS Technical Brief. U.S. Institute for Education Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Singh, A. C., Yu, F., & Dunteman, G. H. (2003). MASSC: A new data mask for limiting statistical information loss and disclosure. In H. Linden, J. Riecan, & L. Belsby (Eds.), Work session on statistical data confidentiality 2003 (pp. 373–394). Eurostat.
   Google Scholar
• Trainor, S. (2015). Student data privacy is cloudy today, clearer tomorrow. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(5), 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721715569463
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2018). Student privacy. https://dpi.wi.gov/assessment/student-privacy
   Google Scholar