Stickiness of respondent-driven sampling recruitment chains. (13th August 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: FISHER, JACOB C.; MERLI, M. GIOVANNA
• Is Part Of: Network science. Volume 2:Number 2(2014)
• Page Start: 298
• Page End: 301
• Publication Date: 2014-08-13
• Subjects: Social networks -- Research -- Periodicals; System analysis -- Periodicals; System theory -- Periodicals; Computer science -- Periodicals; 003.72
• DOI: 10.1017/nws.2014.16
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2050-1242

Abstract

Abstract : Respondent-driven sampling (RDS) is an increasingly popular chain-referral sampling method. Although it has proved effective at generating samples of hard to reach populations—meaning populations for which sampling frames are not available because they are hidden or socially stigmatized like sex workers or injecting drug users—quickly and cost-effectively, the ease of collecting the sample comes with a cost: bias or inefficiency in the estimates of population parameters (Gile & Handcock, 2010; Goel & Salganik, 2010). One way that RDS can produce inefficient estimates is if one or more of the recruitment chains gets stuck among members of a cohesive subpopulation, preventing the RDS sampling process from exploring other areas of the network. If that happens, members of the population subgroup recruit one another repeatedly, leading to an increase in sample size without increasing the diversity of the sample. This type of stickiness is particularly likely when hidden populations are stratified, and the stratified groups are organized into venues that provide opportunities to recruit other members of the same stratum. Female sex workers (FSW) in China, who are stratified into tiers of sex work that are correlated with marital status, age, and risk behaviors, are a prime example (Merli et al., 2014; Yamanis et al., 2013). Chinese FSW recruit clients from venues such as karaoke bars, massage parlors, or street corners. At larger venues, sex workers who participate in an RDS study might recruit other members of the same venue into the study at a higher rate than expected, leading to inefficient estimates. In short, the chain could get stuck in a venue.