Respondent-driven sampling II: deriving valid population estimates from chain-referral samples of hi

By Douglas D. Heckathorn. 2002

1,854 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Epidemiology, General Health Professions, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fe115ef87f19d0549a0ada74d35b4d6ca621b6b1

How researchers see this paper

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

In Epidemiology

In General Health Professions

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Citations in the corpus

Review of sampling hard-to-reach and hidden populations for HIV surveillance. (2005, methodology): “RDS has several features that allow it to overcome some of the limitations inherent in the other methods described above.”
Probability based estimation theory for respondent driven sampling (2008, methodology): “Two enhancements to RDS I were proposed in Heckathorn (2002), which dramatically improve the precision of the estimator.”
6. Extensions of Respondent-Driven Sampling: Analyzing Continuous Variables and Controlling for Differential Recruitment (2007, methodology): “The equilibrium provides the means to project what the sample composition would have been in the absence of differences in degree (Heckathorn 2002:25).”
Social network analysis: A methodological introduction (2008, methodology): “…without representative seed samples; somewhat counterintuitively, the Markovian properties of the sampling mechanism tend to reduce the impact of the seed sample on subsequent waves (see Heckathorn, 2002 for a discussion, and Tierney, 1996 for related commentary on convergence in Markov chains).”
Respondent-Driven Sampling: An Assessment of Current Methodology (2009, background): “Respondent-Driven Sampling (RDS, introduced by Heckathorn 1997, 2002, see also Salganik and Heckathorn, 2004, Volz and Heckathorn 2008) is an approach to sampling design and inference in hard-to-reach populations.”
SNOWBALL VERSUS RESPONDENT-DRIVEN SAMPLING (2011, methodology): “A subsequent paper (Heckathorn 2002) introduced new RDS population estimators (E#2 and E#3).”
Comment: On Respondent-Driven Sampling and Snowball Sampling in Hard-to-Reach Populations and Snowball Sampling Not in Hard-to-Reach Populations (2011, methodology): “…reader is referred to, for example, Biernacki and Waldorf (1981) on snowball sampling in hard-to-reach populations, and to Gile and Handcock (2010), Heckathorn (1997, 2002, 2007), Salganik and Heckathorn (2004), and Volz and Heckathorn (2008) on respondent-driven sampling in hard-to-reach…”
5. Sampling and Estimation in Hidden Populations Using Respondent-Driven Sampling (2004, methodology): “In this paper we develop a new approach to studying hidden populations that is based on a technique called respondent-driven sampling (Heckathorn 1997, 2002).”
Evaluating Recommender Systems with User Experiments (2015, background): “Participants who responded to the reposts/retweets will be more likely to resemble “blind” users, but extra checks should be performed on them since they are recruited via a “snowball sampling method” [32, 49, 78, 101].”
Sampling in Interview-Based Qualitative Research: A Theoretical and Practical Guide (2014, background): “This may be particularly useful when the population being studied is unlikely to respond to advertisements due to the stigmatising or illegal nature of the topic (Heckathorn 2002).”
Variance Estimation, Design Effects, and Sample Size Calculations for Respondent-Driven Sampling (2006, background): “Some preliminary work on bootstrap procedures for respondent-driven sampling has been reported in the literature.(3) Here we build on those first steps by offering an improved procedure and a more”