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

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 R...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Lee Sunghee, Suzer-Gurtekin Tuba, Wagner James, Valliant Richard
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Sciendo 2017-06-01
Series:Journal of Official Statistics
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1515/jos-2017-0017
id doaj-76c049f1fd73492abd816043459e914f
record_format Article
spelling doaj-76c049f1fd73492abd816043459e914f2021-09-06T19:40:52ZengSciendoJournal of Official Statistics2001-73672017-06-0133233536610.1515/jos-2017-0017jos-2017-0017Total Survey Error and Respondent Driven Sampling: Focus on Nonresponse and Measurement Errors in the Recruitment Process and the Network Size Reports and Implications for InferencesLee Sunghee0Suzer-Gurtekin Tuba1Wagner James2Valliant Richard3Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 426 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48104, United States of AmericaInstitute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 426 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48104, United States of AmericaInstitute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 426 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48104, United States of AmericaInstitute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 426 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48104, United States of AmericaThis 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.https://doi.org/10.1515/jos-2017-0017sampling hard-to-reach populationschain referralnetwork-based samplingmeasurement errornonresponse error
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Lee Sunghee
Suzer-Gurtekin Tuba
Wagner James
Valliant Richard
spellingShingle Lee Sunghee
Suzer-Gurtekin Tuba
Wagner James
Valliant Richard
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
sampling hard-to-reach populations
chain referral
network-based sampling
measurement error
nonresponse error
author_facet Lee Sunghee
Suzer-Gurtekin Tuba
Wagner James
Valliant Richard
author_sort Lee Sunghee
title 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
title_short 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
title_full 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
title_fullStr 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
title_full_unstemmed 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
title_sort 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
publisher Sciendo
series Journal of Official Statistics
issn 2001-7367
publishDate 2017-06-01
description 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.
topic sampling hard-to-reach populations
chain referral
network-based sampling
measurement error
nonresponse error
url https://doi.org/10.1515/jos-2017-0017
work_keys_str_mv AT leesunghee totalsurveyerrorandrespondentdrivensamplingfocusonnonresponseandmeasurementerrorsintherecruitmentprocessandthenetworksizereportsandimplicationsforinferences
AT suzergurtekintuba totalsurveyerrorandrespondentdrivensamplingfocusonnonresponseandmeasurementerrorsintherecruitmentprocessandthenetworksizereportsandimplicationsforinferences
AT wagnerjames totalsurveyerrorandrespondentdrivensamplingfocusonnonresponseandmeasurementerrorsintherecruitmentprocessandthenetworksizereportsandimplicationsforinferences
AT valliantrichard totalsurveyerrorandrespondentdrivensamplingfocusonnonresponseandmeasurementerrorsintherecruitmentprocessandthenetworksizereportsandimplicationsforinferences
_version_ 1717767588134518784