Assessing respondent-driven sampling

By Sharad Goel, Matthew J. Salganik. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2010

375 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Reaching the hard-to-reach: a systematic review of strategies for improving health and medical research with socially disadvantaged groups (2014, background): “, % of target group recruited, often single strategy pre-post)# 48 [14,15,16,18,19,20,21,22,26,27,30,33,35,38,39,40,44,45, 46,47,49,50,51,53,54,58,65,66,67;71,75,76;77, 81,84,85, 87,91,95,96,97,99,112,113,117,119,120,125,129]”
The structure of online diffusion networks (2012, background): “Yet another possible explanation is suggested by the example of respondent-driven sampling (RDS) [Salganik and Heckathorn 2004; Goel and Salganik 2010] a type of snowball sampling in which survey respondents enlist the next wave of participants where recruitment chains routinely propagate for man”
Sampling in software engineering research: a critical review and guidelines (2020, methodology): “3 Respondent-driven sampling has, however, been criticized for producing optimistic condence intervals, and generally being “substantially less accurate than generally acknowledged” [22].”
Enriching qualitative research by engaging peer interviewers: a case study (2016, background): “Some have been exploited by researchers and research practices in the past (Goel and Salganik, 2010; Noy, 2008; Padgett, 2008).”