[Althöfer, I. and K.-U. Koschnik. 1991. “On the Convergence of Threshold Accepting.” Applied Mathematics and Optimization 24: 183–195. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01447741.]Search in Google Scholar
[Baragona, R., F. Battaglia, and I. Poli. 2011. Evolutionary Statistical Procedures. Statistics and Computing. Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-16218-3]Search in Google Scholar
[Bredl, S., N. Storfinger, and N. Menold. 2013. “A Literature Review of Methods to Detect Fabricated Survey Data.” In Interviewers’ Deviations in Surveys - Impact, Reasons, Detection and Prevention, edited by P. Winker, N. Menold, and R. Porst, 3–24. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bredl, S., P. Winker, and K. Kötschau. 2012. “A Statistical Approach to Detect Interviewer Falsification of Survey Data.” Survey Methodology 38: 1–10.]Search in Google Scholar
[Crespi, L. 1945. “The Cheater Problem in Polling.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 9: 431–445.10.1086/265760]Search in Google Scholar
[De Haas, S. and P. Winker. 2014. “Identification of Partial Falsifications in Survey Data.” Statistical Journal of the IAOS 30: 271–281. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/SJI-140834.]Search in Google Scholar
[Efron, B. 1979. “Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the Jackknife.” The Annals of Statistics 7: 1–26. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344552.]Search in Google Scholar
[Efron, B. 1982. The Jackknife, the Bootstrap, and Other Resampling Plans. CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics, vol. 38. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611970319.]Search in Google Scholar
[Finn, A. and V. Ranchhod. 2013. “Genuine Fakes: The Prevalence and Implications of Fieldworker Fraud in a Large South African Survey.” SALDRU Working Papers 115, Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit, University of Cape Town. Available at: http://ideas.repec.org/p/ldr/wpaper/115.html (accessed October 22, 2015).]Search in Google Scholar
[Forsman, G. and I. Schreiner. 1991. “The Design and Analysis of Reinterview: An Overview.” In Measurement Errors in Surveys, edited by P. Biemer, R. Groves, L. Lyberg, N. Mathiowetz, and S. Sudman, 279–301. Chichester: Wiley. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118150382.ch15.]Search in Google Scholar
[Gilli, M., D. Maringer, and E. Schumann. 2011. Numerical Methods and Optimization in Finance. Waltham, MA: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-375662-6.00010-9]Search in Google Scholar
[Gwartney, P. 2013. “Mischief Versus Mistakes: Motivating Interviewers to not Deviate.” In Interviewers’ Deviations in Surveys - Impact, Reasons, Detection and Prevention, edited by P. Winker, N. Menold, and R. Porst, 195–215. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hood, C. and M. Bushery. 1997. “Getting More Bang from the Reinterviewer Buck: Identifying ‘at Risk’ Interviewers.” In Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section: American Statistical Association, August 10th to 14th 1997, Anaheim, CA, 820 – 824. Available at: https://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/Proceedings/papers/1997_141.pdf (accessed October 22, 2015).]Search in Google Scholar
[Kemper, C. and N. Menold. 2014. “Nuisance or Remedy? The Utility of Stylistic Responding as an Indicator of Data Fabrication in Surveys.” Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 10: 92–99. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000078.]Search in Google Scholar
[Kemper, C., V. Trofimow, B. Rammstedt, and N. Menold. 2011. “Indicators for the ex post Detection of Faking in Survey Data Constructed from Responses to the Big Five Inventory-10 (BFI-10).” Poster presented at the 11th European Conference on Psychological Assessment, date of conference, Riga, Latvia. Available at: http://www.ecpa11.lu.lv/files/KemperChristoph.pdf (accessed October 22, 2015).10.1037/e523472012-152]Search in Google Scholar
[Krosnick, J. and D. Alwin. 1987. “An Evaluation of a Cognitive Theory of Response Order Effects in Survey Measurement.” Public Opinion Quarterly 51: 201–219. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/269029.]Search in Google Scholar
[Matthews, B. 1975. “Comparison of the Predicted and Observed Secondary Structure of t4 Phage Lysozyme.” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 405: 442–451. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0005-2795(7590109-9).]Search in Google Scholar
[Menold, N. and C. Kemper. 2014. “How Do Real and Falsified Data Differ? Psychology of Survey Response as a Source of Falsification Indicators in Face-to-Face Surveys.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 26: 41–65. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edt017.]Search in Google Scholar
[Menold, N., P. Winker, N. Storfinger, and C. Kemper. 2013. “A Method for ex-post Identification of Falsifications in Survey Data.” In Interviewers’ Deviations in Surveys – Impact, Reasons, Detection and Prevention, edited by P. Winker, N. Menold, and R. Porst, 25–47. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.]Search in Google Scholar
[Messick, S. 1967. “The Psychology of Acquiescence, an Interpretation of Research Evidence.” In Response Set in Personality Assessment, edited by I. Berg. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.1966.tb00357.x.]Search in Google Scholar
[Porras, J. and N. English. 2004. “Data-Driven Approaches to Identifying Interviewer Data Falsification: The Case of Health Surveys.” In Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section: American Statistical Association, August 8th to 12th 2004, Toronto, 4223–4228. Available at: http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/Proceedings/y2004/files/Jsm2004-000879.pdf (accessed October 23, 2015).]Search in Google Scholar
[Reuband, K.-H. 1990. “Interviews, die keine sind, ‘Erfolge’ und ‘Mißerfolge’ beim Fälschen von Interviews.” Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 42: 706–733.]Search in Google Scholar
[Schäfer, C., J. Schräpler, K. Müller, and G. Wagner. 2005. “Automatic Identification of Faked and Fraudulent Interviews in the German SOEP.” Schmollers Jahrbuch 125: 183–193.10.3790/schm.125.1.183]Search in Google Scholar
[Storfinger, N. and M. Opper. 2011. “Datenbasierte Indikatoren für potentiell abweichendes Interviewerverhalten.” Discussion Paper 58, ZEU, September 2011, Giessen. Available at: http://geb.uni-giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2012/8559/pdf/ZeuDiscPap58.pdf (accessed October 23, 2015).]Search in Google Scholar
[Storfinger, N. and P. Winker. 2013. “Assessing the Performance of Clustering Methods in Falsification Using Bootstrap.” In Interviewers’ Deviations in Surveys - Impact, Reasons, Detection and Prevention, edited by P. Winker, N. Menold, and R. Porst, 49–65. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.]Search in Google Scholar
[Tourangeau, R., K. Rasinski, J. Jobe, B. Jared, T. Smith, and W. Pratt. 1997. “Sources of Error in a Survey on Sexual Behavior.” Journal of Official Statistics 13: 341–365.]Search in Google Scholar
[Verbiest, N., K. Vermeulen, and A. Teresdai. 2015. “Evaluation of Classification Methods.” In Data Classification – Algorithms and Applications, edited by C. Aggarwal, 633–655. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Winker, P. 2001. Optimization Heuristics in Econometrics: Applications of Threshold Accepting. Chichester: Wiley.]Search in Google Scholar