Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
The Effects of Failing to Include Hard-to-Reach Respondents in Longitudinal Surveys
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
The Effects of Failing to Include Hard-to-Reach Respondents in Longitudinal Surveys
Do you wish to request the book?
The Effects of Failing to Include Hard-to-Reach Respondents in Longitudinal Surveys
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
The Effects of Failing to Include Hard-to-Reach Respondents in Longitudinal Surveys
2009
Overview
Objectives. We sought to determine whether failure to locate hard-to-reach respondents in longitudinal studies causes biased and inaccurate study results. Methods. We performed a nonresponse simulation in a survey of 498 low-income women who received cash aid in a California county. Our simulation was based on a previously published analysis that found that women without children who applied for General Assistance experienced more violence than did women with children who applied for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. We compared hard-to-reach respondents whom we reinterviewed only after extended follow-up effort 12 months after baseline with other respondents. We then removed these hard-to-reach respondents from our analysis. Results. Other than having a greater prevalence of substance dependence (14% vs 6%), there were no significant differences between hard- and easy-to-reach respondents. However, excluding the hard to reach would have decreased response rates from 89% to 71% and nullified the findings, a result that did not stem primarily from reduced statistical power. Conclusions. The effects of failure to retain hard-to-reach respondents are not predicable based on respondent characteristics. Retention of these respondents should be a priority in public health research.
Publisher
Am Public Health Assoc,American Public Health Association
Subject
/ Adult
/ Bias
/ Biological and medical sciences
/ Black People - statistics & numerical data
/ Children
/ Crime Victims - statistics & numerical data
/ Data Collection - statistics & numerical data
/ Female
/ Females
/ Hispanic or Latino - statistics & numerical data
/ Humans
/ Ill-Housed Persons - statistics & numerical data
/ Male
/ Mothers
/ Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine
/ R&D
/ United States - epidemiology
/ White People - statistics & numerical data
/ Women
