Evidence Hub

Robust Designs for Prospective Randomized Trials Surveying Sensitive Topics

Evan T. R. Rosenman, Rina Friedberg, Mike Baiocchi

arXiv, 2021

Abstract

We consider the problem of designing a prospective randomized trial in which the outcome data will be self-reported, and will involve sensitive topics. Our interest is in misreporting behavior, and how respondents' tendency to under- or overreport a binary outcome might affect the power of the experiment. We model the problem by assuming each individual in our study is a member of one "reporting class": a truth-teller, underreporter, overreporter, or false-teller. We show that the joint distribution of reporting classes and "response classes" (characterizing individuals' response to the treatment) will exactly define the bias and variance of the causal estimate in our experiment. Then, we propose a novel procedure for deriving sample sizes under the worst-case power corresponding to a given level of misreporting. Our problem is motivated by prior experience implementing a randomized controlled trial of a sexual violence prevention program among adolescent girls in Nairobi, Kenya.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free