## **3.1.2 Nigeria**

In Nigeria, the measurement experiment was conducted during the endline survey wave of a cluster randomized control trial studying the effects of the Feed the Future Nigeria Livelihoods Project, a multicomponent cash transfer, nutrition, and agriculture program.<sup>17</sup> The survey took place in Northwest Nigeria on the border region with Niger. The sample consisted of ultra-poor households, with approximately 30 percent in polygamous marriages, 84 percent identifying as Muslim, and 15 percent of women self-reporting as literate.

The eligibility criteria for the measurement experiment were that the respondent was female, over 17 years of age, and married and living in the same household as a male. In total, 2,817 women met these criteria and were randomly assigned to answer three experimental questions about their experience of IPV using either the face-to-face or list method. Assignment to the method groups was stratified on the same geographic and poverty-related strata used to assign respondents to treatment arms for the randomized control trial.

The three IPV questions used for the measurement experiment were either directly from or combined several violence questions from the DHS.<sup>18</sup> The experimental questions were:

1. In the past 12 months, has your husband said or done something to humiliate you in front of others?

2. In the past 12 months, has your husband slapped you, pushed you, shaken you, or thrown something at you?

3. In the past 12 months, has your husband physically forced you to have sexual intercourse with him when you did not want to?

The respondents were interviewed one-on-one by a female enumerator in a private setting, usually in the household compound. Enumerators were instructed to pause if anyone came within earshot of the interview, not proceeding until privacy was assured.<sup>19</sup>

# **3.2 The measurement experiment**

We assess misreporting bias by comparing rates of IPV and sexual violence across three survey methods: face-to-face, list experiment, and ACASI (with the latter only used in Rwanda). Given that assignment to the survey method was random, we assume that the only difference in reported violence between the groups is due to the method used.

## **3.2.1 Estimation: Calculating prevalence under each survey method**

Prevalence under the ACASI and face-to-face methods, where the sensitive item is asked directly, is simply the mean proportion of respondents who said they had experienced violence.

> 17The study evaluated the impacts of a package of livelihoods interventions, unconditional cash transfers, and a mentoring program, and was implemented by Catholic Relief Services (Bastian, Goldstein and Papineni, 2017). The cash transfers and most livelihoods programming ended in 2017, approximately 12 months before these data were collected.

> 18Female respondents were first asked about their experience of IPV using the list method (asked either the sensitive or non-sensitive list, depending on her randomly assigned group), followed by direct face-to-face IPV questions. The direct questions included the three measurement experiment questions (asked only to those in the face-to-face assigned group), and five face-to-face questions asked of all respondents (to be used as outcome measures for the main randomized trial).

> 19Occasionally this was difficult to achieve in busy household compounds, for example, when household members came to the house to collect items, causing enumerators to pause interviews. Data were collected from May-July 2018.

8