Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (20)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stang, A.
Right arrow Articles by Jöckel, K.-H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Stang, A.
Right arrow Articles by Jöckel, K.-H.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Am J Epidemiol 2004; 159:204-210.
Copyright © 2004 by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Studies with Low Response Proportions May Be Less Biased than Studies with High Response Proportions

Andreas Stang  and Karl-Heinz Jöckel

From the Epidemiology Unit, Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University Hospital, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.

The association between the response proportion in epidemiologic studies and nonresponse bias is complicated, because exposure prevalences and misclassification errors may vary by recruitment wave. In this paper, the authors illustrate the effect of varying degrees of wave-specific nondifferential exposure measurement error in a dichotomous exposure on the relative risk in a hypothetical cohort study of 5,000 participants, by recruitment wave. The field phase of the hypothetical cohort study consisted of five consecutive recruitment waves. The authors assigned response proportions to each wave (wave 1: 30%; wave 2: 10%; wave 3: 10%; wave 4: 30%; wave 5: 20%) and studied three different wave-specific patterns of true exposure prevalence: 1) the true exposure prevalence remains the same in all waves; 2) the true exposure prevalence increases by wave; and 3) the true exposure prevalence decreases by wave. The authors assumed three corresponding patterns of nondifferential misclassification error in exposure status across waves. If the nondifferential exposure misclassification increases by wave, the cumulative relative risk estimate is increasingly biased towards the null. This bias is intensified if the true exposure prevalence increases by wave. Studies with low response proportions may be less biased than studies with high response proportions if the nondifferential misclassification error in a dichotomous exposure increases by recruitment wave.

bias (epidemiology); data collection; data interpretation, statistical; epidemiologic measurement; epidemiologic methods; measurement error; prevalence; response

Abbreviations: Abbreviation: NDME, nondifferential misclassification error.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
A. D. Steffen, L. N. Kolonel, A. M. Nomura, F. S. Nagamine, K. R. Monroe, and L. R. Wilkens
The Effect of Multiple Mailings on Recruitment: The Multiethnic Cohort
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., February 1, 2008; 17(2): 447 - 454.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Int J EpidemiolHome page
V. Lorant, S. Demarest, P.-J. Miermans, and H. Van Oyen
Survey error in measuring socio-economic risk factors of health status: a comparison of a survey and a census
Int. J. Epidemiol., December 1, 2007; 36(6): 1292 - 1299.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Epidemiol. Community HealthHome page
K. Harald, V. Salomaa, P. Jousilahti, S. Koskinen, and E. Vartiainen
Non-participation and mortality in different socioeconomic groups: the FINRISK population surveys in 1972-92
J. Epidemiol. Community Health, May 1, 2007; 61(5): 449 - 454.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J EpidemiolHome page
L. F. Voigt, D. M. Boudreau, N. S. Weiss, K. E. Malone, C. I. Li, and J. R. Daling
RE: "STUDIES WITH LOW RESPONSE PROPORTIONS MAY BE LESS BIASED THAN STUDIES WITH HIGH RESPONSE PROPORTIONS"
Am. J. Epidemiol., February 15, 2005; 161(4): 401 - 402.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J EpidemiolHome page
A. Stang and K.-H. Jockel
THE AUTHORS REPLY
Am. J. Epidemiol., February 15, 2005; 161(4): 403 - 403.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.