Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T09:23:28.174Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

30 - Finding the hard to reach and keeping them engaged in research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2014

Kirsten Becker
Affiliation:
RAND Corporation
Sandra H. Berry
Affiliation:
RAND Corporation
Nate Orr
Affiliation:
RAND Corporation
Judy Perlman
Affiliation:
RAND Corporation
Roger Tourangeau
Affiliation:
Westat Research Organisation, Maryland
Brad Edwards
Affiliation:
Westat Research Organisation, Maryland
Timothy P. Johnson
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Chicago
Kirk M. Wolter
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Nancy Bates
Affiliation:
US Census Bureau
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Many types of survey respondents are difficult to access, to locate, and (in longitudinal research) to stay in contact with throughout the course of a study. These types of respondents fall into two main categories. The first category includes people who are difficult to reach by nature, such as young adults whose lives are in transition, the mentally ill, the homeless, and drug users. These population groups are extremely mobile and, in some cases, less likely to maintain close ties with relatives who might serve as a means of locating or contacting them. The second category includes people who are consciously avoiding being located in an attempt to avoid contact with the justice system, immigration authorities, debt collectors, stalkers, or others. People falling into either of these two categories may lack fixed addresses, or be “cell phone only,” with episodic cell service and numbers that change frequently, or list residences or phones in the name of another person.

The hardest subjects to reach in a target population group might provide fundamentally different responses than members of the group who are relatively easier to find and survey (Groves, Fowler, Couper, Lepkowski, Singer, & Tourangeau, 2004). Not including certain segments of a population leads to nonresponse bias, which threatens the quality of survey statistics and the validity and generalizability of research findings (Cottler, Compton, Ben-Abdallah, Horne, & Claverie, 1996). The goal of maximizing power and minimizing potential nonresponse becomes even more difficult when the study population by definition is hard to reach. Researchers face a trifecta of challenges to data reliability when such studies are longitudinal: maximizing power, minimizing systematic nonresponse, and maintaining the respondent pool over time. Tracking efforts can minimize these threats by maximizing participation among sample members (Brown & Nederend, 1997), minimizing nonresponse among respondents with certain characteristics or reflecting sample subpopulations (Teitler, Reichman, & Sprachman, 2003), and reducing subject attrition in research requiring multiple waves of data collection (Cottler et al., 1996).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andresen, E., Machuga, R., Van Booven, M., Egel, J., Chibnall, J., & Talt, R. (2008). Effects and costs of tracing strategies on nonresponse bias in a survey of workers with low-back injury. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(1), 40–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J., & Nederend, S. (1997). Locating and Surveying Medicaid and AFDC Beneficiaries: CAHPS Field Test Experience to Date. DRU-1664-AHCPR. Prepared for Agency for Health Care Policy Research. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
Burgess, R. D. (1989). Major issues and implications of tracing survey respondents. In Kasprzyk, D., Duncan, G., Kalton, G., and Singh, M. P. (eds.), Panel Surveys (pp. 52–74). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Calderwood, L. (2012). Tracking sample members in longitudinal studies. Survey Practice, 5(4). [e-journal: .]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cepeda, A., & Valdez, A. (2010). Ethnographic strategies in the tracking and retention of street-recruited community-based samples of substance using hidden populations in longitudinal studies. Substance Use and Misuse, 45(5), 700–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coen, A., Patrick, D., & Shern, D. (1996). Minimizing attrition in longitudinal studies of special populations: an integrated management approach. Evaluation and Program Planning, 19(4), 309–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, E., Mowbray, C., Bybee, D., Yeich, S., Ribisl, K., & Freddolino, P. (1993). Tracking and follow-up methods for research on homelessness. Evaluation Review, 17(3), 331–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conover, S., Berkman, A., Gheith, A., Jahiel, R., Stanley, D., Geller, P., et al. (1997). Methods for successful follow-up of elusive urban populations: an ethnographic approach with homeless men. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 74(1), 90–108.Google ScholarPubMed
Corsi, K., Van Hunnik, B., Kwiatkowski, C., & Booth, R. (2006). Computerized tracking and follow-up techniques in longitudinal research with drug users. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 6(3–4), 101–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cottler, L., Compton, W., Ben-Abdallah, A., Horne, M., & Claverie, D. (1996). Achieving a 96.6 percent follow-up rate in a longitudinal study of drug abusers. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 41(3), 209–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper, M., & Ofstedal, M. (2009). Keeping in contact with mobile sample members. In Lynn, P. (ed.), Methodology of Longitudinal Surveys. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Durrant, G., Groves, R., Staetsky, L., & Steele, F. (2010). Effects of interviewer attitudes and behaviors on refusal in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelen, M., Slaughter, M., McCaffrey, D., Becker, K., & Morral, A. (2010). Long term effect of community based treatment: evidence from the Adolescent Outcomes Project. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 107(1), 62–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freedman, D., Thornton, A., & Camburn, D. (1980). Maintaining response rates in longitudinal studies. Psychological Methods & Research, 9(1), 87–98.Google Scholar
Fumagalli, L., Laurie, H., & Lynn, P. (2013). Experiments with methods to reduce attrition in longitudinal surveys. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 176(2), 499–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelberg, L., Robertson, M., Arangua, L., Leake, B., Sumner, G., Moe, A., et al. (2012). Prevalence, distribution, and correlates of Hepatitis C virus infection among homeless adults in Los Angeles. Public Heath Reports, 127(4), 407–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grandone, M., & Moritz, K. (2010). Strategies for client tracking and follow-up, Global Appraisal of Individual Needs Training Manual, Normal, IL. Retrieved from .
Gregory, M., Lohr, M. J., & Gilchrist, L. (1992). Methods for tracking pregnant and parenting adolescents. Evaluation Review, 17(1), 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groves, R., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M., Lepkowski, J., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2004). Survey Methodology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Gwadz, M., & Rotheram-Borus, M. J. (1992). Tracking high-risk adolescents longitudinally. AIDS Education and Prevention, Fall Supplement, 69–82.Google ScholarPubMed
Hill, Z. (2004). Reducing attrition in panel studies in developing countries. International Journal of Epidemiology, 33(3), 493–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hough, R., Tarke, H., Renker, V., Shields, P., & Glatstein, J. (1996). Recruitment and retention of homeless mentally ill participants in research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(5), 881–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunt, J., & White, E. (1998). Retaining and tracking cohort study members. Epidemiologic Reviews, 20(1), 57–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leonard, N., Lester, P., Rotheram-Borus, M., Mattes, K., Gwadz, M., & Ferns, B. (2003). Successful recruitment and retention of participants in longitudinal behavioral research. AIDS Education and Prevention, 15(3), 269–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCuller, W., Sussman, S., Holiday, K., Craig, S., & Dent, C. (2002). Tracking procedures for locating high-risk youth. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 25(3), 345–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKenzie, M., Tulsky, J. P., Long, H., Chesney, M., & Moss, A. (1999). Tracking and follow-up of marginalized populations: a review. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 10(4), 409–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marmor, J., Oliveria, S., Donahue, R., Garrahie, E., White, M. J., Moore, L., et al. (1991). Factors encouraging cohort maintenance in a longitudinal study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 44(6), 531–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menendez, E., White, M. C., & Tulsky, J. P. (2001). Locating study subjects: predictors and successful search strategies with inmates released from a U.S. county jail. Controlled Clinical Trials, 22(3), 238–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nwadiuko, J., Isbell, P., Zolotor, A., Hussey, J., & Kotch, J. (2011). Using social networking sites in subject tracing. Field Methods, 23(1), 77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, B., & Marks, E. (2011). Using facebook to locate sample members, Survey Practice (2011, October 24). Retrieved April 16, 2012 from .
Ribisl, K., Walton, M., Mowbray, C., Luke, D., DavidsonII, W., & Bootsmiller, B. (1996). Minimizing participant attrition in panel studies through the use of effective retention and tracking strategies: review and recommendations. Evaluation and Program Planning, 19(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumptz, M., Sullivan, C., Davidson, W., & Basta, J. (1991). An ecological approach to tracking battered women over time. Violence and Victims, 6(3), 237–44.Google ScholarPubMed
Scott, C. (2004). A replicable model for achieving over 90% follow-up rates in longitudinal studies of substance abusers. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 74, 21–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singer, E., Groves, R. M., & Corning, A. (1999). Differential incentives: beliefs about practices, perceptions of equity, and effects on survey participation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 63(2), 251–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, E., & Kulka, R. A. (2002). Paying respondents for survey participation. In Vander Ploeg, M., Moffitt, R. A., & Citro, C. F. (eds.), Studies of Welfare Populations: Data Collection and Research Issues (pp.105–28). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Teitler, J., Reichman, N., & Sprachman, S. (2003). Costs and benefits of improving response rates for a hard-to-reach population. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67(1), 126–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, S. (2011). Longitudinal tracking methods in a study of adult women sexual assault survivors. Violence against Women, 17(2), 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willimack, D., Schuman, H., Pennell, B.-E., & Lepkowski, J. (1995). Effects of a prepaid nonmonetary incentive on response rates and response quality in a face-to-face study. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59(1), 78–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, J., Lampton Allen, T., & Devine, J. (1995). Tracking non-traditional populations in longitudinal studies. Evaluation and Program Planning, 18(3), 267–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, S., & Rice, E. (2011). Online social networking technologies, HIV knowledge, and sexual risk and testing behaviors among homeless youth. AIDS Behavior, 15(2), 253–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×