Measuring Bullying Among Students Using the Randomized Response Technique

Year 2018, Volume: 9 , 269 - 275, 18.08.2018

Beatriz Cobo Rodrıguez David Molina Munoz

Abstract

Due to its sensitive nature, bullying is difficult to study empirically.
The prevalence and the frequency of bullying are difficult to estimate using
standard survey techniques due to the tendency of respondents to hide
information in such settings. This behavior is known as social desirability,
that is, the desire to make a favorable impression on others, and poses a
significant threat to the validity of self-reports. Since the 1960s a variety
of questioning methods have been devised to ensure respondents' anonymity and
to reduce the incidence of evasive answers and the over/underreporting of
socially undesirable acts. These methods are generally known as indirect
questioning techniques (IQTs) and they obey the principle that no direct
question is posed to survey participants. Therefore, their privacy is protected
because the responses remain confidential to the respondents and, consequently,
their true status remains uncertain and undisclosed to both the interviewer and
the researcher. This paper describes a survey asking sensitive qualitative
questions about bullying, conducted using one of the IQT, concretely,
randomized response technique (RRT). This work tests the efficacy of RRT in
establishing higher rates of truthful self-reporting when compared to
traditional survey techniques.

Keywords

Bullying, Social desirability, Indirect questioning techniques, Randomized response techniques

References

• Arnab, R., & Singh, S. (2010). Randomized response techniques: An application to the Botswana AIDS impact survey. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 140, 941- 953. S.K. Bar-Lev, E. Bobovitch, & B. Boukai. (2004). A note on randomized response models for quantitative data. Metrika, 60, 255-260. R.F. Boruch. (1972). Relations among statistical methods for assuring con dentiality of social research data. Social Science Research, 1, 403-414. Casas, J.A., Del Rey. R., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2013). Bullying and cyberbullying: Convergent and divergent predictor variables Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 580-587, 10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.015 Del Barrio, C., Martín, E., Montero, I., Gutiérrez, H., Barrios, A., and De Dios, M.J. (2008). Bullying and social exclusion in Spanish secondaryschools: National trends from 1999 to 2006. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 8, 657-677. J.L. Devore. (1977). A note on the randomized response technique. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, 6, 1525-1529. G. Diana, & P.F. Perri. (2010). A new scrambled response models for estimating the mean of a sensitive quantitative character. Journal of Applied Statistics, 37, 1875-1890. Dietz P., Striegel H., Franke A.G., Lieb K., Simon P., & Ulrich R. (2013). Randomized response estimates for the 12-month prevalence of cognitive-enhancing drug use in university students. Pharmacotherapy, 33, 44-50. B. Eichhorn, & L.S. Hayre. (1983). Scrambled randomized response methods for obtaining sensitive quantitative data. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 7, 307-316. S.A. Eriksson. (1973). A new model for randomized response. International Statistical Review, 41, 40-43. El Español. (2017). https://www.elespanol.com/sociedad/20170427/211728988_0.html Fox, J.A., & Tracy, P.E. (1986). Randomized Response: A Method for Sensitive Surveys. Sage, Berverly Hills. Fox, J.P., & Meijer, R.R. (2008). Using Item Response Theory to Obtain Individual Information From Randomized Response Data: An Application Using Cheating Data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 32, 595-610. Furlong, M.J., Greif, J.L., Bates, M.P., Whipple, A.D., Jimenez, T.C., & Morrison, R. (2005) Development of the California school climate and safety survey-short form. Psychology in the Schools, 42 , 137-149, 10.1002/pits.20053 Goodstadt M.S., & Gruson V. (1975). The randomized response technique: a test on drug use. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 70 (352), 814-818. Greenberg, B.G., Abul-Ela, A.L., Simmons, W.R., & Horvitz, D.G. (1969). The unrelated question RR model: Theoretical framework. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 64, 520-539. Holbrook, A.L., & Krosnick, J.A. (2010). Measuring voter turnout by using the randomized response technique: evidence calling into question the methods validity. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 328-343. Horvitz, D.G., Shah, B.V., & Simmons, W.R. (1967). The unrelated question RR model. Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section of the American Statistical Association. 65-72. Alexandria, VA: ASA. Kerkvliet J. (1994). Estimating a logit model with randomized data: the case of cocaine use. Australian Journal of Statistics, 36(1), 920. Kowalski, R.M., Giumetti, G.W., Schroeder, A.N., & Lattanner, M.R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1073-1137, 10.1037/a0035618 Krumpal, I. (2012). Estimating the Prevalence of Xenophobia and Anti-Semitism in Germany: A Comparison of Randomized Response and Direct Questioning. Social Science Research, 41 (6), 1387-1403. Kuha, J., & Jackson, J. (2014). The item count method for sensitive survey questions: modelling criminal behavior. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C, 63 (2), 321-341. A.Y.C. Kuk. (1990). Asking sensitive questions indirectly. Biometrika, 77, 436-438. Lara, D., García, S.G., Ellertson, C., Camlin, C., & Suárez, J. (2006). The measure of induced abortion in Mexico using random response technique. Sociological Methods & Research, 35, 279-301. N.S. Mangat, & R. Singh. (1990). An alternative randomized response procedure. Biometrika, 77, 439-442. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: what we know and what we can do. Blackwell, Oxford, UK; Cambridge, USA. ONG Bullying Sin Fronteras. (2018). https://bullyingsinfronteras.blogspot.com.es/2017/05/estadisticas-de-bullying-en-espana-mayo.html Ortega, R., & Fernández, I. (1998). Violencia, agresión y disciplina. Prevención de la Violencia y Resolución de Conflictos. El clima escolar como factor de calidad, Narcea Ediciones, Madrid, pp. 19-29 Ortega, R. (2010). Agresividad injustificada, bullying y violencia escolar. Alianza Editorial, Madrid. Ostapczuk, M., Moshagen, M., Zhao Z., & Musch, Z. (2009). Randomized Response Technique: Evidence for the Importance of Response Symmetry. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 4 (2), 267-287. Play Store (2015). Download the application “Baraja Española”. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=cartas.barajaes. Rueda, M., Cobo, B. & Arcos, A. (2015). Package ‘RRTCS’: Randomized Response Techniques for Complex Surveys. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/RRTCS/. Singh, S. (2003). Advanced Sampling Theory with Applications. How Michael ‘selected’ Amy. Springer, Netherlands. Slonje, R., Smith, P.K., & Frisén, A. (2013). The nature of cyberbullying, and strategies for prevention. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 26-32, 10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.024 Striegel H., Ulrich R., & Simon P. (2009). Randomized response estimates for doping and illicit drug use in elite athletes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 15, 230-232. Tillé, Y. & Matei, A. (2015). R Package sampling: survey sampling, pp 76. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/sampling/sampling.pdf. Tokunaga, R.S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26 , 277-287, 10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014 Warner, S.L. (1965). RR: A survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias., JASA, 60, 63-69.