Cited by 36

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Web-Based Enrollment and Other Types of Self-Selection in Surveys and Studies: Consequences for Generalizability

Keiding, Niels, Louis, Thomas A.·2018·Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application

Abstract

Web-based enrollment in surveys and studies is increasingly attractive as the Internet is approaching near-universal coverage and the attitude of respondents toward participation in classical modes of study deteriorates. Follow-up is also facilitated by the web-based approach. However, the consequent self-selection raises the question of the importance of representativity when attempting to generalize the results of a study beyond the context in which they were obtained, particularly under effect heterogeneity. Our review is divided into three main components: first, sample surveys or prevalence studies, assessing the frequency or prevalence of some attitude or disease condition in a population from its frequency in a sample from this population; second, generalization of the results from randomized trials to the population in which they were performed and to other populations; and third, generalization of results from observational studies.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev-statistics-031017-100127

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 76

  1. 10.1093/aje/kwv007 · DOI
  2. 10.1093/pan/mps023 · DOI
  3. 10.1093/jssam/smt008 · DOI
  4. 10.1073/pnas.1510507113 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Battaglia MP, 2008, Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods, 523
  6. 10.1093/biomet/ass063 · DOI
  7. 10.1093/jnci/djj374 · DOI
  8. Buchanan AL, 2015, Generalizing evidence from randomized trials using inverse probability of sampling weights
  9. 10.1093/poq/nfp075 · DOI
  10. 10.1080/01621459.2015.1123157 · DOI
  11. 10.1080/01621459.2016.1149407 · DOI
  12. 10.1093/aje/kwq084 · DOI
  13. 10.1086/318641 · DOI
  14. 10.1093/ije/dyw001 · DOI
  15. Elliott M, 2016, J. R. Stat. Soc. A, 179, 357
  16. 10.1080/02841860802032769 · DOI
  17. 10.1177/1740774509103868 · DOI
  18. 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2002.00021.x · DOI
  19. 10.1016/j.annepidem.2007.03.013 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1002/sim.3218 · DOI
  21. 10.17226/24652 · DOI
  22. 10.1001/archpsyc.63.3.332 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000011 · DOI
  24. 10.1080/01621459.2016.1149401 · DOI
  25. 10.1093/aje/kwv008 · DOI
  26. 10.1093/aje/kwv006 · DOI
  27. 10.1111/rssa.12094 · DOI
  28. 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000400 · DOI
  29. 10.1136/jech.2004.029496 · DOI
  30. Hernán MA, 2017, Causal Inference
  31. 10.1080/01621459.1952.10483446 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2007.00527.x · DOI
  33. Japec L, 2015, AAPOR report on big data
  34. Keeter S, 2014, Amstat News, 448, 3
  35. 10.1111/rssa.12136 · DOI
  36. Kennedy C, 2016, Evaluating Online Nonprobability Surveys
  37. Kiær AN, 1895, Bull. Int. Stat. Inst., 9, 176
  38. 10.2307/1403202 · DOI
  39. 10.2307/1402564 · DOI
  40. 10.2307/1403151 · DOI
  41. Leenheer J, 2013, Int. J. Internet Sci., 8, 17
  42. 10.1198/016214504000000467 · DOI
  43. Little RJ, 2012, J. Off. Stat., 28, 309
  44. 10.1214/16-STS584 · DOI
  45. 10.1093/biostatistics/kxn014 · DOI
  46. 10.1002/9781118763520.ch5 · DOI
  47. 10.2196/jmir.3161 · DOI
  48. 10.1201/b16720-50 · DOI
  49. Meng XL, 2016, J. R. Stat. Soc. A, 179, 351
  50. 10.1093/poq/nfw060 · DOI
  51. Miettinen OS, 1985, Theoretical Epidemiology
  52. 10.1093/ije/dyn191 · DOI
  53. 10.1136/bmj.i4262 · DOI
  54. Natl. Acad. Sci. Eng. Med., 2016, Reducing Response Burden in the American Community Survey: Proceedings of a Workshop
  55. 10.1111/j.1467-9868.2007.00635.x · DOI
  56. 10.1017/CBO9780511803161 · DOI · Paper page
  57. Pearl J, 2015, J. Causal Infer., 3, 259, 10.1515/jci-2015-0025 · DOI
  58. 10.1214/14-STS486 · DOI
  59. 10.1136/jech.2009.107185 · DOI
  60. 10.1136/jech-2011-200065 · DOI
  61. 10.1016/j.annepidem.2015.09.007 · DOI
  62. 10.1093/poq/nfp091 · DOI
  63. 10.1002/sim.3063 · DOI
  64. 10.1093/ije/dyt103 · DOI
  65. Rothman KJ, 1986, Modern Epidemiology
  66. 10.1093/ije/dys223 · DOI · Paper page
  67. Rothman KJ, 1998, Modern Epidemiology
  68. Rothman KJ, 2008, Modern Epidemiology
  69. Särndal CE, 2007, Surv. Methodol., 33, 99
  70. Särndal CE, Swensson B, Wretman J. 1992.Model Assisted Survey Sampling. New York: Springer · DOI
  71. Trewin D, 2014, Stat. J. IAOS, 30, 231, 10.3233/SJI-140829 · DOI
  72. Wagner J, 2012, J. Off. Stat., 28, 477
  73. 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2014.06.001 · DOI · Paper page
  74. 10.1177/1740774509102563 · DOI
  75. 10.1177/1740774510363753 · DOI
  76. 10.1093/poq/nfr020 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Keiding, N., & Louis, T. A.
Venue
Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application
Published
2018-03-07
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
25-47
ISSN
  • 2326-8298
  • 2326-831X
Cited by
36
References
2
Language
en

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