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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Chandler, J., Mueller, P., & Paolacci, G. (2014) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0365-7 · Cited by 950
Selective drop-out in longitudinal studies and non-biased prediction of behaviour disorders
Wolke, D., Waylen, A., Samara, M., Steer, C., Goodman, R., Ford, T., & Lamberts, K. (2009) · British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.108.053751 · Cited by 628
Challenges in recruitment of research participants
Patel, M. X., Doku, V., & Tennakoon, L. (2003) · Advances in Psychiatric Treatment · doi:10.1192/apt.9.3.229 · Cited by 465
Pelletier, K. R. (2001) · American Journal of Health Promotion · doi:10.4278/0890-1171-16.2.107 · Cited by 341
A systematic review of the effect of retention methods in population-based cohort studies
Booker, C. L., Harding, S., & Benzeval, M. (2011) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-249 · Cited by 300
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.