skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 78343 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: Comparative Validation of the Randomized Response and Direct Question Methods - Final Report
Author(s): J A Fox; P E Tracy; M E Wolfgang
Corporate Author: University of Pennsylvania
Ctr for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law
United States of America
Date Published: 1980
Page Count: 156
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice/
Rockville, MD 20849
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19174
US Dept of Justice
Washington, DC 20531
US Dept of Justice NIJ Pub
Washington, DC 20531
Grant Number: 78-NI-AX-0123
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
NCJRS paper reproduction
Box 6000, Dept F
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: Findings are reported from a comparison of the randomized response and direct question methods of interviewing persons who might have been involved in criminal or embarrassing activities.
Abstract: Since accurate information on sensitive issues is difficult to obtain from persons who might have been involved in a crime, without violating their legal rights, a random response technique has been developed to overcome interview problems related to self-confession. Basically, the technique requires the interviewee to respond, on a prior fixed random basis, to one part of a two-part question. The question contains a 'sensitive' element and a nonsensitive element. The interviewer does not know to which part of the question the interviewee is responding, but the analysis of responses from several respondents will provide a good estimate of the 'sensitive' data values desired. The procedure also avoids the problems of confidentiality of information, since there is no way to link a specific response to a sensitive question with a specific person should the data be required by a court. The study uses an accurate standard (police records of arrests) to compare this technique with the more traditional direct question technique. The random response approach is concluded to be more accurate than the traditional approach; although for a given level of accuracy, the technique requires four times as many respondents. Attached are interview schedules and materials, the interviewer instruction manual, and the codebook for data set. Five notes and 43 references are listed.
Index Term(s): Evaluation; Interview and interrogation; Suspect interrogation; Techniques
Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS.
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.