IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/offsta/v33y2017i2p335-366n3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Total Survey Error and Respondent Driven Sampling: Focus on Nonresponse and Measurement Errors in the Recruitment Process and the Network Size Reports and Implications for Inferences

Author

Listed:
  • Lee Sunghee

    (Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 426 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48104, United States of America)

  • Suzer-Gurtekin Tuba

    (Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 426 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48104, United States of America)

  • Wagner James

    (Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 426 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48104, United States of America)

  • Valliant Richard

    (Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 426 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48104, United States of America)

Abstract

This study attempted to integrate key assumptions in Respondent-Driven Sampling (RDS) into the Total Survey Error (TSE) perspectives and examine TSE as a new framework for a systematic assessment of RDS errors. Using two publicly available data sets on HIV-at-risk persons, nonresponse error in the RDS recruitment process and measurement error in network size reports were examined. On nonresponse, the ascertained partial nonresponse rate was high, and a substantial proportion of recruitment chains died early. Moreover, nonresponse occurred systematically: recruiters with lower income and higher health risks generated more recruits; and peers of closer relationships were more likely to accept recruitment coupons. This suggests a lack of randomness in the recruitment process, also shown through sizable intra-chain correlation. Self-reported network sizes suggested measurement error, given their wide dispersion and unreasonable reports. This measurement error has further implications for the current RDS estimators, which use network sizes as an adjustment factor on the assumption of a positive relationship between network sizes and selection probabilities in recruitment. The adjustment resulted in nontrivial unequal weighting effects and changed estimates in directions that were difficult to explain and, at times, illogical. Moreover, recruiters’ network size played no role in actual recruitment. TSE may serve as a tool for evaluating errors in RDS, which further informs study design decisions and inference approaches.

Suggested Citation

  • Lee Sunghee & Suzer-Gurtekin Tuba & Wagner James & Valliant Richard, 2017. "Total Survey Error and Respondent Driven Sampling: Focus on Nonresponse and Measurement Errors in the Recruitment Process and the Network Size Reports and Implications for Inferences," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(2), pages 335-366, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:offsta:v:33:y:2017:i:2:p:335-366:n:3
    DOI: 10.1515/jos-2017-0017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/jos-2017-0017
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/jos-2017-0017?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gile, Krista J., 2011. "Improved Inference for Respondent-Driven Sampling Data With Application to HIV Prevalence Estimation," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 106(493), pages 135-146.
    2. Zheng, Tian & Salganik, Matthew J. & Gelman, Andrew, 2006. "How Many People Do You Know in Prison?: Using Overdispersion in Count Data to Estimate Social Structure in Networks," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 101, pages 409-423, June.
    3. Krista J. Gile & Lisa G. Johnston & Matthew J. Salganik, 2015. "Diagnostics for respondent-driven sampling," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 178(1), pages 241-269, January.
    4. Ashton M Verdery & Ted Mouw & Shawn Bauldry & Peter J Mucha, 2015. "Network Structure and Biased Variance Estimation in Respondent Driven Sampling," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-27, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fatemi, Samira & Salehi, Mostafa & Veisi, Hadi & Jalili, Mahdi, 2018. "A fuzzy logic based estimator for respondent driven sampling of complex networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 510(C), pages 42-51.
    2. Dongah Kim & Krista J. Gile & Honoria Guarino & Pedro Mateu‐Gelabert, 2021. "Inferring bivariate association from respondent‐driven sampling data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 70(2), pages 415-433, March.
    3. Aronow, Peter M. & Crawford, Forrest W., 2015. "Nonparametric identification for respondent-driven sampling," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 100-102.
    4. Ian E. Fellows & Mark S. Handcock, 2023. "Modeling of networked populations when data is sampled or missing," METRON, Springer;Sapienza Università di Roma, vol. 81(1), pages 21-35, April.
    5. Larissa Jennings Mayo-Wilson & Muthoni Mathai & Grace Yi & Margaret O Mak’anyengo & Melissa Davoust & Massah L Massaquoi & Stefan Baral & Fred M Ssewamala & Nancy E Glass & NAHEDO Study Group, 2020. "Lessons learned from using respondent-driven sampling (RDS) to assess sexual risk behaviors among Kenyan young adults living in urban slum settlements: A process evaluation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-22, April.
    6. Áureo de Paula, 2015. "Econometrics of network models," CeMMAP working papers CWP52/15, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    7. Palmer, J. & Sorda, G. & Madlener, R., 2015. "Modeling the diffusion of residential photovoltaic systems in Italy: An agent-based simulation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 106-131.
    8. DiPrete, Thomas A. & Gelman, Andrew & Teitler, Julien & Zheng, Tian & McCormick, Tyler, 2008. "Segregation in social networks based on acquaintanceship and trust," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Inequality and Social Integration SP I 2008-204, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    9. Chien-Min Huang & F. Jay Breidt, 2023. "A dual-frame approach for estimation with respondent-driven samples," METRON, Springer;Sapienza Università di Roma, vol. 81(1), pages 65-81, April.
    10. Antonio Cabrales & Antoni Calvó-Armengol & Yves Zenou, 2009. "Social Interactions and Spillovers: Incentives,Segregation and Topology," Working Papers 2009-06, FEDEA.
    11. Áureo de Paula, 2020. "Econometric Models of Network Formation," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 775-799, August.
    12. Cabrales, Antonio & Calvó-Armengol, Antoni & Zenou, Yves, 2007. "Effort and synergies in network formation," UC3M Working papers. Economics we072515, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    13. Lisa Avery & Alison Macpherson & Sarah Flicker & Michael Rotondi, 2021. "A review of reported network degree and recruitment characteristics in respondent driven sampling implications for applied researchers and methodologists," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-19, April.
    14. Florence Samkange-Zeeb & Ronja Foraita & Stefan Rach & Tilman Brand, 2019. "Feasibility of using respondent-driven sampling to recruit participants in superdiverse neighbourhoods for a general health survey," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 64(3), pages 451-459, April.
    15. Lucinda Platt & Renee Luthra & Tom Frere-Smith, 2015. "Adapting chain referral methods to sample new migrants," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 33(24), pages 665-700.
    16. Elizabeth Sully & Margaret Giorgio & Selena Anjur-Dietrich, 2020. "Estimating abortion incidence using the network scale-up method," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 43(56), pages 1651-1684.
    17. José M. Coronado & Amparo Moyano & Vicente Romero & Rita Ruiz & Javier Rodríguez, 2021. "Student Long-Term Perception of Project-Based Learning in Civil Engineering Education: An 18-Year Ex-Post Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-16, February.
    18. Lee Sunghee & Ong Ai Rene & Elliott Michael, 2020. "Exploring Mechanisms of Recruitment and Recruitment Cooperation in Respondent Driven Sampling," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 36(2), pages 339-360, June.
    19. Feehan, Dennis & Son, Vo Hai & Abdul-Quader, Abu, 2021. "Survey methods for estimating the size of weak-tie personal networks," SocArXiv z2t4p, Center for Open Science.
    20. Malmros Jens & Masuda Naoki & Britton Tom, 2016. "Random Walks on Directed Networks: Inference and Respondent-Driven Sampling," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 32(2), pages 433-459, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:vrs:offsta:v:33:y:2017:i:2:p:335-366:n:3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.