Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 249

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Minimizing participant attrition in panel studies through the use of effective retention and tracking strategies: Review and recommendations

Open access
Ribisl, Kurt M., Walton, Maureen A., Mowbray, Carol T., Luke, Douglas A., Davidson, William S., Bootsmiller, Bonnie J.·1996·Evaluation and Program Planning

Abstract

Participant attrition poses a significant threat to the internal and external validity of panel studies, in part because participants who successfully complete all follow-up measurements often differ in significant ways from those respondents lost to attrition. The only certain safeguard against potential biases resulting from attrition is to ensure high interview completion rates during follow-up. Unfortunately, information about reducing preventable attrition is not discussed in most research reports and a comprehensive review paper has not yet been published. The purpose of the present paper is to provide a brief overview of how attrition can threaten the validity of panel studies and to discuss eight promising methods of minimizing attrition through the use of effective retention and tracking strategies. Attempts to reduce attrition are not always met with complete success, therefore, a brief discussion of statistical techniques to assess and correct for potential attrition biases is provided. Finally, methods of calculating attrition rates are suggested along with recommendations for future research.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0149-7189(95)00037-2

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 249

Metadata

Authors
Ribisl, K. M., Walton, M. A., Mowbray, C. T., Luke, D. A., Davidson, W. S., & Bootsmiller, B. J.
Venue
Evaluation and Program Planning
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1996-02
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
1-25
ISSN
0149-7189 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1978252666
Cited by
249
References
0
FWCI
24.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Minimizing participant attrition in panel studies through the use of effective retention and tracking strategies: Review and recommendations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0149-7189(95)00037-2
The paper
Ribisl, K. M., Walton, M. A., Mowbray, C. T., Luke, D. A., Davidson, W. S., & Bootsmiller, B. J. (1996). Minimizing participant attrition in panel studies through the use of effective retention and tracking strategies: Review and recommendations. Evaluation and Program Planning. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(95)00037-2

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.