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

Lee Sunghee (), Suzer-Gurtekin Tuba (), Wagner James () and Valliant Richard ()
Additional contact information
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

Journal of Official Statistics, 2017, vol. 33, issue 2, 335-366

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.

Keywords: Sampling hard-to-reach populations; chain referral; network-based sampling; measurement error; nonresponse error (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1515/jos-2017-0017 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:vrs:offsta:v:33:y:2017:i:2:p:335-366:n:3

DOI: 10.1515/jos-2017-0017

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Official Statistics is currently edited by Annica Isaksson and Ingegerd Jansson

More articles in Journal of Official Statistics from Sciendo
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Peter Golla ().