This paper suggests a new randomized response model useful for gathering information on quantitative sensitive variable such as drug usage, tax evasion and induced abortions etc. The resultant estimator has been found to more efficient than the estimator of the Saha (2007) under some realistic conditions. We have illustrated results numerically.
Bar-LevS. K.BobovitchE., & BoukaiB. (2004). A note on randomized response models for quantitative data. Metrika, 60, 255-260.
2.
DianaG., & PerriP. F. (2010). New scrambled response models for estimating the mean of a sensitive quantitative character. Jour Appl Statist, 37(11), 1875-1890.
3.
DianaG., & PerriP. F. (2011). A class of estimators for quantitative sensitive data. Statistical Papers, 52, 633-650.
4.
EichhornB. H., & HayreL. S. (1983). Scrambled randomized response methods for obtaining sensitive quantitative data. Jour Statist Plan Infer, 7, 307-316.
5.
GuptaS. N., & ShabbirJ. (2008). On improvement in estimating the population mean in simple random sampling. Jour Appl Statist, 35(5), 559-566.
6.
GuptaS. N.ShabbirJ.SousaR., & Corte-RealP. (2012). Estimation of the mean of a sensitive variable in the presence of auxiliary information. Commun Statist-Theo Meth, 41(13-14), 2394-2404.
7.
GuptaS. N.ThortonB.ShabbirJ., & SinghalS. (2006). A comparison of multiplicative and additive optional RRT models. Jour Statist Theor Appl, 5(3), 226-239.
8.
GjestvangC. R., & SinghS. (2009). An improved randomized response model: Estimation of mean. Jour Appl Statist, 36(12), 1361-1367.
9.
HimmelfarbS., & EdgellS. E. (1980). Additive constant model: A randomized response technique for eliminating evasiveness to quantitative response questions. Psychol Bull, 87, 525-530.
10.
HussainZ., & Al-ZahraniB. (2016). Mean and sensitivity estimation of a sensitive variable through additive scrambling. Commun Statist-Theo Method, 45(1), 182-193.
11.
PerriP. F., & DianaG. (2013). Scrambled response models based on auxiliary variables: Advances in theoretical and applied statistics, Springer Verlag, Berlin, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-35588-2-26.
12.
PollockK. H., and BekY. (1976). A comparison of three randomized response models for quantitative data. Jour Amer Statist Assoc, 71(356), 884-886.
13.
PriyankaK.TrisandhyaP., & MittalR. (2017). Dealing sensitive characters on successive occasions through a general class of estimators using scrambled response technique. Metron, doi: 10.1007/s40300-017-0131-1.
14.
PriyankaK., & TrisandhyaP. (2019). Some classes of estimators for sensitive population mean on successive moves. Jour Statist Theo Practice, doi: 10.1007/s42519-018-0008-5.
15.
SahaA. (2007). A simple randomized response technique in complex surveys. Metron, 65(1), 59-66.
16.
SinghH. P., & MathurN. (2005). Estimation of population mean when coefficient of variation is known using scrambled response technique. Jour Statist Plan Infer, 131, 135-144.
17.
SinghS.HornS., & ChoudharyS. (1998). Estimation of stigmatized characteristics of a hidden gang in finite population. Austral and New Zealand Jour Statist, 40, 291-297.
18.
WarnerS. L. (1965). Randomized response: A survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. Jour Amer Statist Assoc, 60, 63-69.
