A Comparison of Network Sampling Designs for a Hidden Population of Drug Users: Random Walk vs. Respondent-Driven Sampling

If you need an accessible version of this item, please email your request to digschol@iu.edu so that they may create one and provide it to you.
Date
2016
Language
English
Embargo Lift Date
Committee Members
Degree
Degree Year
Department
Grantor
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Found At
Elsevier
Abstract

Both random walk and respondent-driven sampling (RDS) exploit social networks and may reduce biases introduced by earlier methods for sampling from hidden populations. Although RDS has become much more widely used by social researchers than random walk (RW), there has been little discussion of the tradeoffs in choosing RDS over RW. This paper compares experiences of implementing RW and RDS to recruit drug users to a network-based study in Houston, Texas. Both recruitment methods were implemented over comparable periods of time, with the same population, by the same research staff. RDS methods recruited more participants with less strain on staff. However, participants recruited through RW were more forthcoming than RDS participants in helping to recruit members of their social networks. Findings indicate that, dependent upon study goals, researchers' choice of design may influence participant recruitment, participant commitment, and impact on staff, factors that may in turn affect overall study success.

Description
item.page.description.tableofcontents
item.page.relation.haspart
Cite As
Bell, D. C., Erbaugh, E. B., Serrano, T., Dayton-Shotts, C. A., & Montoya, I. D. (2016). A comparison of network sampling designs for a hidden population of drug users: Random walk vs. respondent driven sampling. Social Science Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.08.016
ISSN
Publisher
Series/Report
Sponsorship
Major
Extent
Identifier
Relation
Journal
Social Science Research
Source
Author
Alternative Title
Type
Article
Number
Volume
Conference Dates
Conference Host
Conference Location
Conference Name
Conference Panel
Conference Secretariat Location
Version
Author's manuscript
Full Text Available at
This item is under embargo {{howLong}}