Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:51:36.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

20 - Recent developments of sampling hard-to-survey populations: an assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2014

Sunghee Lee
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
James Wagner
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Richard Valliant
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Steve Heeringa
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
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

While there are difficulties in precisely defining hard-to-survey (H2S), hard-to-find, rare, hidden, or elusive populations (see Chapter 1 for a discussion of definitions), there is general agreement that it is very difficult to locate certain population subgroups. Studying such groups using cross-sectional surveys of the general population is challenging, because sample sizes are often too small to provide reasonable precision for point estimates and statistical power for comparisons. If the H2S groups are the target population of a study, sampling of their members becomes an issue.

Sampling for scientific data collection with these H2S populations is one of the most notable challenges discussed in the sampling literature (e.g., Kalton, 2009; Sudman, Sirken, & Cowan, 1988). Some studies mistakenly argue that frames do not exist for these populations (e.g., Paquette & de Wit, 2010). It is true that there are no readily available sampling frames exclusively of these population members. However, it is technically possible to sample from the general population and screen for the target population members. This type of screening presents two challenges. First, building a sampling frame for such H2S populations is costly. Assume that a study has HIV positive cigarette smokers as its target population, as in Humfleet, Delucchi, Kelley, Hall, Dilley, and Harrison (2009). A large number of households sampled from the general population need to be screened to find enough people who meet the criteria of both being HIV positive and smoking cigarettes. Second, depending on the level of social stigma and discrimination associated with the H2S population of interest, some population members may misreport their eligibility intentionally in the screening interviews in order not to reveal their identity. HIV positive cigarette smokers are associated with socially stigmatized HIV status as well as the socially undesirable status of being a smoker. For these reasons, traditional probability sampling approaches, although ideal, are often regarded as being infeasible and impractical. Although expensive to conduct, there are many studies of H2S populations using probability samples (see Table 15.1 of Binson, Blair, Huebner, & Woods, 2007). Examples include the use of multistage area probability samples and random digit dialed (RDD) telephone samples (e.g., Catania, Osmond, Stall, Pollack, Paul, Blower et al., 2001; Cochran & Mays, 2000).

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

Binson, D., Blair, J., Huebner, D. M., & Woods, W. J. (2007). Sampling in surveys of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. In Meyer, I. H. & Northridge, M. E. (eds.), The Health of Sexual Minorities: Public Health Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Populations (pp. 375–418). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bull, S., McFarlane, M., & Reitmeijer, C. (2001). HIV and sexually transmitted infection risk behaviors among men seeking sex with men on-line. American Journal of Public Health, 91(6), 988–89.Google ScholarPubMed
Cabral, D. N., Napoles-Springer, A. N., Miike, R., McMillan, A., Sison, J. D., Wrensch, M. R., et al. (2003). Population- and community-based recruitment of African Americans and Latinos. The San Francisco Bay Area Lung Cancer Study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 158(3), 272–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Catania, J. A., Osmond, D., Stall, R. D., Pollack, L., Paul, J. P., Blower, S., et al. (2001). The continuing HIV epidemic among men who have sex with men. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 907–14.Google ScholarPubMed
Chiasson, M. A., Parsons, J. T., Tesoriero, J. M., Carballo-Dieguez, A., Hirshfield, S., & Remien, R. H. (2006). HIV behavioral research online. Journal of Urban Health, 83(1), 73–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chutuape, K. S., Ziff, M., Auerswald, G., Castillo, M., McFadden, A., & Ellen, J. (2009). Examining differences in types and location of recruitment venues for young males and females from urban neighborhoods: findings from a multi-site HIV preventions study. Journal of Urban Health, 86(1), 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Cochran, S. D., & Mays, V. M. (2000). Relation between psychiatric syndromes and behaviorally defined sexual orientation in a sample of the U.S. population. American Journal of Epidemiology, 151, 516–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copas, J. B., & Li, H. G. (1997). Inference for non-random samples (and discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 59, 55–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper, M. P. (2000). Web surveys: a review of issues and approaches. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(4), 464–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Couper, M. P. (2007). Issues of representation in eHealth research (with a focus on Web surveys). American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32(5), S83–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danel, I., Graham, W., Stupp, P., & Castillo, P. (1996). Applying sisterhood method for estimating maternal mortality to a health facility-based sample: a comparison with results from a household-based sample. International Journal of Epidemiology, 25(5), 1017–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deville, J.-C., & Tillé, Y. (2004). Efficient balanced sampling: the cube method. Biometrika, 91, 893–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellen, J. M., & Fichtenberg, C. M. (2007). Venue-based sampling in STD research: generalizable to and independent of whom?Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 34(8), 532–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernst, L. R. (1981). A constructive solution for two-dimensional controlled selection problems. In Joint Statistical Meetings Proceedings, Section on Survey Research Methods (pp. 61–64). Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.Google Scholar
Ernst, L. R., Guciardo, C. J., Izsak, Y., Lisic, J. J., & Ponikowski, C. H. (2008). Implementation of controlled selection in the National Compensation Survey redesign. In Joint Statistical Meetings Proceedings (pp. 977–84). Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.Google Scholar
Ghys, P. D., Diallo, M. O., Ettiegne-Traore, V., Kale, K., Tawil, O., Carael, M., et al. (2002). Increase in condom use and decline in HIV and sexually transmitted diseases among female sex workers in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, 1991–1998. AIDS, 16, 251–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodman, R., & Kish, L. (1950). Controlled selection – a technique in probability sampling. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 45(251), 350–72.Google Scholar
Groves, R. M. (1989). Survey Errors and Survey Costs. New York: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, M. H., Hurwitz, W. N., & Madow, W. G. (1953). Sample Survey Methods and Theory (vols. I–II). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Heckathorn, D. D., & Jeffri, J. (2003). Social networks of jazz musicians. In Changing the Beat: A Study of the Worklife of Jazz Musicians, vol. III: Respondent-Driven Sampling (pp. 48–61). Survey Results by the Research Center for Arts and Culture, National Endowment for the Arts Research Division Report #43. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts.Google Scholar
Humfleet, G. L., Delucchi, K., Kelley, K., Hall, S. M., Dilley, J., & Harrison, G. (2009). Characteristics of HIV-positive cigarette smokers: a sample of smokers facing multiple challenges. AIDS Education and Prevention, 21(Suppl. 3), 54–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jason, L. A., Jornal, K. M., Richman, J. A., Rademaker, A. W., Huang, C.-F., McCready, W., et al. (1999). A community-based study of prolonged fatigue and chronic fatigue. Journal of Health Psychology, 4(1), 9–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kalton, G. (1991). Sampling flows of mobile human populations. Survey Methodology, 17(2), 183–94.Google Scholar
Kalton, G. (2009). Methods for oversampling rare subpopulations in social surveys. Survey Methodology, 35(2), 125–41.Google Scholar
Kanouse, D. E., Berry, S. H., Duan, N., Lever, J., Carson, S., Perlman, J. F., & Levitan, B. (1999). Drawing a probability sample of female street prostitutes in Los Angeles County. Journal of Sex Research, 36(1), 45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, C., Kerr, L., Gondim, R., Werneck, G., Macena, R., Pontes, M., et al. (2008). An empirical comparison of respondent-driven sampling, time location sampling, and snowball sampling for behavioral surveillance in men who have sex with men, Fortaleza, Brazil. AIDS and Behavior, 12(Suppl. 4), 97–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kish, L. (1965). Survey Sampling. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Kish, L. (2003). The hundred years’ war of survey sampling (reprinted from Statistics in Transition, 1995). In Kalton, G. & Heeringa, S. (eds.), Leslie Kish, Selected Papers (pp. 5–19). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kruskal, W. H., & Mosteller, F. (1979a). Representative sampling. I. The current statistical literature. International Statistical Review, 47, 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, W. H., & Mosteller, F. (1979b). Representative sampling. II. The current statistical literature. International Statistical Review, 47, 111–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, W. H., & Mosteller, F. (1979c). Representative sampling. III. The current statistical literature. International Statistical Review, 47, 245–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lee, S., & Valliant, R. (2009). Estimation for volunteer panel web surveys using propensity score adjustment and calibration adjustment. Sociological Methods & Research, 37(3), 319–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liau, A., Millet, G., & Marks, G. (2006). Meta-analytic examination of online sex-seeking and sexual risk behavior among men who have sex with men. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 33, 576–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McFarlane, M., Bull, S. S., & Rietmeijer, C. A. (2000). The internet as a newly emerging risk environment for sexually transmitted diseases. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284, 443–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacKellar, D. A., Gallagher, K. M., Flnlayson, T., Lansky, A., & Sullivan, P. S. (2007). Surveillance of HIV risk and prevention behaviors of men who have sex with men – a national application of venue-based, time-space sampling. Public Health Reports, 122(Suppl. 1), 39–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magnani, R., Sabin, K., Saidel, T., & Heckathorn, D. (2005). Review of sampling hard-to-reach and hidden populations for HIV surveillance. AIDS, 19(Suppl. 2), S67–S72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malekinejad, M., Johnston, L. G., Kendall, C., Kerr, L. R. F. S., Rifkin, M. R., & Rutherford, G. (2008). Using respondent-driven sampling methodology for HIV biological and behavioral surveillance in international settings: a systematic review. AIDS and Behavior, 12, S105–S130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mettey, A., Crosby, R., DiClemente, R., & Holtgrave, D. (2003). Associations between internet sex seeking and STI associated risk behaviours among men who have sex with men. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 79, 466–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, I. H., Schwartz, S., & Frost, D. M. (2008). Social patterning of stress and coping: does disadvantaged status confer excess exposure and fewer coping resources?Social Science & Medicine, 67, 368–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, I. H., & Wilson, P. A. (2009). Sampling lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(1), 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neyman, J. (1934). On the two different aspects of the representative method: the method of stratified sampling and the method of purposive selection. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 97(4), 558–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nieto, F. J., Young, T. B., Lind, B. J., Shahar, E., Samet, J. M., Redline, S., et al. (2000). Association of sleep-disordered breathing, sleep apnea, and hypertension in a large community-based study. Journal of the American Medical Association, 283(14), 1829–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paquette, D., & de Wit, J. (2010). Sampling methods used in developed countries for behavioural surveillance among men who have sex with men. AIDS and Behavior, 14, 1252–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raymond, H. F., Rebchook, G., Curotto, A., Vaudrey, J., Amsden, M., Levine, D., et al. (2010). Comparing internet-based and venue-based methods to sampling MSM in the San Francisco Bay Area. AIDS and Behavior, 14, 218–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Razak, M. H., Jittiwutikarn, J., Suriyanon, V., Vongchak, T., Srirak, N., Beyer, C., et al. (2003). HIV prevalence and risks among injection and noninjection drug users in northern Thailand: need for comprehensive HIV prevention programs. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 33, 259–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Remafedi, G. (2002). Suicidality in a venue-based sample of young men who have sex with men. Journal of Adolescent Health, 31, 305–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, M., Tikkanen, R., & Mansson, D. (2000). Differences between internet sample and conventional samples of men who have sex with men: implications for research and HIV interventions. Social Science & Medicine, 51, 749–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosser, B. R. S., Miner, M. H., Bockting, W. O., Konstan, J., Gurak, L., Stanton, J., et al. (2009). HIV risk and the internet: results of the Men’s INTernet Sex (MINTS) Study. AIDS and Behavior, 13(4), 746–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosser, B. R. S., Oakes, J. M., Bockting, W. O., & Miner, M. (2007). Capturing the social demographics of hidden sexual minorities: an internet study of the transgender population in the United States. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 4, 50–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarkar, K., Bal, B., Mukherjee, R., Chakraborty, S., Saha, S., Ghosh, A., & Parsons, S. (2008). Sex-trafficking, violence, negotiating skill, and HIV infection in brothel-based sex workers of Eastern India, adjoining Nepal, Bhutan, and Bangladesh. Journal of Health Population and Nutrition, 26(2), 223–31.Google ScholarPubMed
Särndal, C.-E., Swensson, B., & Wretman, J. (1992). Model Assisted Survey Sampling. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sell, R. (2007). Defining and measuring sexual orientation for research. In Meyer, I. H. & Northridge, M. E. (eds.), The Health of Sexual Minorities: Public Health Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Population (pp. 355–74). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semaan, S., Lauby, J., & Liebman, J. (2002). Street and network sampling in evaluation studies of HIV risk-reduction interventions. AIDS Review, 4, 213–23.Google ScholarPubMed
Speizer, I. S., Beauvais, H., Gomez, A. M., Outlaw, T. F., & Roussel, B. (2009). Using multiple sampling approaches to measure sexual risk-taking among young people in Haiti: programmatic implications. Studies in Family Planning, 40(4), 277–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stephan, F. F., & McCarthy, P. J. (1958). Sampling Opinions: An Analysis of Survey Procedure. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Stoop, I. A. L. (2005). The Hunt for the Last Respondent: Nonresponse in Sample Surveys. Social & Cultural Planning Office: The Hague, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Stueve, A., O’Donnell, L., Duran, R., Doval, A., & Blome, J. (2001). Methodological issues in time-space sampling in minority communities: results with Latino young men who have sex with men. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 922–26.Google Scholar
Sudman, S., Sirken, M. G., & Cowan, C. D. (1988). Sampling rare and elusive populations. Science, 240, 991–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thaisri, H., Lewitworapong, J., Vongsheree, S., Sawanpanyalert, P., Chadbanchachai, C., Rojanawiwat, A., et al. (2003). HIV infection and risk factors among Bangkok prisoners, Thailand: a prospective cohort study. BMC Infectious Diseases [online journal], 3, 25. .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010, September 24). Prevalence and awareness of HIV infection among men who have sex with men – 21 cities, United States, 2008. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 59, 1201–07. Retrieved from .Google Scholar
US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development. (2008). A Guide to Counting Unsheltered Homeless People (2nd rev.edn.). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from .Google Scholar
Valleroy, L., MacKellar, D., Karon, J., Rosen, D. H., McFarland, W., Shehan, D. A., et al., (2000). HIV prevalence and associated risks in young men who have sex with men. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284, 198–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valliant, R., & Dever, J. (2011). Estimating propensity adjustments for volunteer Web surveys. Sociological Methods & Research, 40, 105–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valliant, R., Dorfman, A. H., & Royall, R. M. (2000). Finite Population Sampling and Inference: A Prediction Approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Xia, Q., Tholandi, M., Osmond, D. H., Pollack, L. M., Zhou, W., Ruiz, J. D., & Catania, J. A. (2006). The effect of venue sampling on estimates of HIV prevalence and sexual risk behaviors in men who have sex with men. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 33(9), 545–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org 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
×