Skip Navigation


American Journal of Epidemiology Advance Access originally published online on June 23, 2006
American Journal of Epidemiology 2006 164(3):296; doi:10.1093/aje/kwj245
This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
164/3/296-a    most recent
kwj245v1
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 Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by White, E.
Right arrow Articles by Kolar, A. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by White, E.
Right arrow Articles by Kolar, A. S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

American Journal of Epidemiology Copyright © 2006 by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health All rights reserved; printed in U.S.A.

Letter to the Editor

TWO AUTHORS REPLY

Emily White and Ann Shattuck Kolar

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA 98195-7230

(e-mail: ewhite{at}fhcrc.org)

We thank Paul Sacco (1Go) for his interest in our study (2Go). We noted in the Discussion section of our paper that the two trials presented are limited because each was based on a sample of people who had participated in some way on one (not two) previous occasion, that this self-selection led to high response on the first mailing, and that our findings of an effect of a pen/pencil in the second mailing on response may not be generalizable to studies that have low response to a first mailing. We meant to imply by these statements, but did not state explicitly because we did not have comparison data on those not included in our sample, that our samples differed from the general population by demographic and other factors that are associated with participation, and that our findings might not be generalizable to a representative sample.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Conflict of interest: none declared.

References

  1. Sacco P. Re: "Increasing response to mailed questionnaires by including a pencil/pen." (Letter). Am J Epidemiol 2006;164:296.[Free Full Text]
  2. White E, Carney PA, Kolar AS. Increasing response to mailed questionnaires by including a pencil/pen. Am J Epidemiol 2005;162:261–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

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



This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
164/3/296-a    most recent
kwj245v1
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 Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by White, E.
Right arrow Articles by Kolar, A. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by White, E.
Right arrow Articles by Kolar, A. S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?