The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
7. Respondent-Driven Sampling: An Assessment of Current Methodology
Open accessAbstract
Respondent-driven sampling (RDS) employs a variant of a link-tracing network sampling strategy to collect data from hard-to-reach populations. By tracing the links in the underlying social network, the process exploits the social structure to expand the sample and reduce its dependence on the initial (convenience) sample. The current estimators of population averages make strong assumptions in order to treat the data as a probability sample. We evaluate three critical sensitivities of the estimators: (1) to bias induced by the initial sample, (2) to uncontrollable features of respondent behavior, and (3) to the without-replacement structure of sampling. Our analysis indicates: (1) that the convenience sample of seeds can induce bias, and the number of sample waves typically used in RDS is likely insufficient for the type of nodal mixing required to obtain the reputed asymptotic unbiasedness; (2) that preferential referral behavior by respondents leads to bias; (3) that when a substantial fraction of the target population is sampled the current estimators can have substantial bias. This paper sounds a cautionary note for the users of RDS. While current RDS methodology is powerful and clever, the favorable statistical properties claimed for the current estimates are shown to be heavily dependent on often unrealistic assumptions. We recommend ways to improve the methodology.
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
Cites
Malekinejad, M., Johnston, L. G., Kendall, C., Kerr, L. R. F. S., Rifkin, M. R., & Rutherford, G. W. (2008) · AIDS and Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10461-008-9421-1 · Cited by 433 · cited 3×
“In many RDS studies, however, the sample is known to include a large fraction of the target population (Malekinejad et al., 2008).”
BackgroundInfluential
Cited by
Inference for Nonprobability Samples
Elliott, M. R., & Valliant, R. (2017) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/16-sts598 · Cited by 331
Network Sampling: From Snowball and Multiplicity to Respondent-Driven Sampling
Heckathorn, D. D., & Cameron, C. J. (2017) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053556 · Cited by 307
Sharing and neoliberal discourse: The economic function of sharing in the digital on-demand economy
Cockayne, D. G. (2016) · Geoforum · doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.10.005 · Cited by 277
Dhanorkar, S., Wolf, C. T., Qian, K., Xu, A., Popa, L., & Li, Y. (2021) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2021 · doi:10.1145/3461778.3462131 · Cited by 119
Inuit, T., Smylie, J., Firestone, M., & Spiller, M. W. (2018) · Canadian Journal of Public Health · doi:10.17269/s41997-018-0111-0 · Cited by 32
Metadata
- Authors
- Gile, K. J., & Handcock, M. S.
- Venue
- Sociological Methodology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2010-05-03
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 285-327
- ISSN
- 0081-1750 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9531
- OpenAlex
- W2153808891
- Cited by
- 613
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 32.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: 7. Respondent-Driven Sampling: An Assessment of Current Methodology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-9531.2010.01223.x
- The paper
- Gile, K. J., & Handcock, M. S. (2010). 7. Respondent-Driven Sampling: An Assessment of Current Methodology. Sociological Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9531.2010.01223.x
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.