Comparison of different imputing methods for scrambled responses

DOI10.1016/BS.HOST.2016.01.026MaRDI QIDQ5272709zbMATH OpenOpenAlexFDO

Authors

Publication date 4 July 2017

Published in Data Gathering, Analysis and Protection of Privacy Through Randomized Response Techniques: Qualitative and Quantitative Human Traits (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.host.2016.01.026

zbMATH Keywords

imputationmissing datarandomized response samplingsensitive characteristics

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Sampling theory, sample surveys (62D05) Authentication, digital signatures and secret sharing (94A62)

Recommendations

• Imputing and jackknifing scrambled responses
• Some imputation methods for missing data in sample surveys
• Use of scrambled responses on two occasions successive sampling under non-response
• Compromised imputation in survey sampling.
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 5507215

Cited in

(3)

• Imputing and jackknifing scrambled responses
• Generalized Family of Estimators for Imputing Scrambled Responses
• A fresh imputing survey methodology using sensible constraints on study and auxiliary variables: dubious random non-response

This page was built for publication: Comparison of different imputing methods for scrambled responses

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q5272709)