Random versus volunteer selection for a community-based study

Journals of Gerontology - Series A Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences

Volumn 53, Issue 1, 1998, Pages

  Ganguli, Mary ^a   Lytle, Mary E ^a   Reynolds, Maureen D ^a   Dodge, Hiroko H ^a  

^a WPIC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; COGNITION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; FORECASTING; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MALE; MORTALITY; PATIENT SELECTION; RANDOMIZATION; RISK FACTOR; RURAL POPULATION; SAMPLE SIZE; SEX DIFFERENCE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; UNITED STATES; UTILIZATION REVIEW; VOLUNTARY WORKER;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); COGNITION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; FORECASTING; HEALTH SERVICES; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; MORTALITY; PATIENT SELECTION; PENNSYLVANIA; RANDOM ALLOCATION; RISK FACTORS; RURAL POPULATION; SAMPLE SIZE; SAMPLING STUDIES; SEX FACTORS; VOLUNTARY WORKERS;

EID: 0031607150     PISSN: 10795006     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/gerona/53A.1.M39     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Kinsella K. Demographic imperative. Cancer Control 1995; 7-10.
2. Rosenthal R, Rosnow RL. The volunteer subject. New York: John Wiley, 1975.
3. Ganguli M, Belle S, RatcliffG, et al. Sensitivity and specificity for dementia of population-based criteria for cognitive impairment: the MoVIES project. J Gerontol 1993;48:M152-61.
4. Ganguli M, Ratcliff G, Huff FJ, et al. Effects of age, gender, and education on cognitive tests in a rural elderly community sample: norms from the Monongahela Valley Independent Elders Survey. Neuroepidemiology 1991; 10:42-52.
5. Holstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. Mini-Mental State: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J PsychiatRes 1975; 12:189-98.
6. Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gemntologist 1969;9: 179-86.
7. Ganguli M, Seaberg E, Belle S, Fischer L, Kuller LH. Cognitive impairment and the use of health services in an elderly rural population: the MoVIES project. J Am GeriatrSoc 1993;41:1065-70.
8. Cox DR. Regression models and life tables. J Roy Stat Soc 1972;34: 187-220.
9. Norton MC, Breitner JCS, Welsh KA, Wyse BW. Characteristics of nonresponders in a community survey of the elderly. / Am Geriatr Socl994;42:1252-6.
10. Hebert R, Bravo G, Korner-Bitensky N, Voyer L. Refusal and information bias associated with postal questionnaires and face-to-face interviews in very elderly subjects. J Clin Epidemiol 1996;49:373-81.
11. Koval JJ, Ecclestone NA, Paterson DH, Brown B, Cunningham DA, Rechnitzer PA. Response rates in a survey of physical capacity among older persons. J Gerontol 1992;47:S140-7.
12. Launer LJ, Wind AW, Deeg DJH. Nonresponse pattern and bias in a community-based cross-sectional study of cognitive functioning among the elderly. A m J Epidemiol 1994; 139:803-12.
13. Ives DG, Traven ND, Kuller LH, Schulz R. Selection bias and nonresponse to health promotion in older adults. Epidemiology 1994; 5:456-61.
14. Poon LW, Krauss IK, Bowles NL. On subject selection in cognitive aging research. Exp Aging Res 1984; 10:43-9.
15. Herzog AR, Rodgers WL. Age and response rates to interview sample surveys. J Gerontol 1988;43:S200~5.
16. Maddox GL. Goals and methods. Selected methodological issues. In: Palmore E., ed. Reports from the Duke Longitudinal Study, 1955-1969. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1970;18-27.
17. Katzman R, Aronson M, Fuld P, et al. Development of dementing illnesses in an 80-year-old volunteer cohort. Ann Neural 1989;25:317-24.
18. Peris TT, Morris JN, Ooi WL, Lipsitz LA. The relationship between age, gender and cognitive performance in the very old: the effect of selective survival. J Am GeriatrSoc 1993;41:1193-201.
19. Tsuang D, Kukull W, Sheppard L, et al. Impact of sample selection on APOE e4 allele frequency: a comparison of two Alzheimer's disease samples. J Am GeriatrSoc 1996;44:704-7.
20. Williams DE, Vitiello MV, Ries RK, Bokan J, Prinz PN. Successful recruitment of elderly community-dwelling subjects for Alzheimer disease research. J Gerontol 1988;43:M69-74.
21. Morris FH. Characteristics of older nonrespondents over five waves of a panel study. J Gerontol 1985;40:627-36.
22. Kokmen E, Ozsarfati Y, Beard CM, O'Brien PC, Rocca WA. Impact of referral bias on clinical and epidemiological studies of Alzheimer's disease. J Clin Epidemiol 1996;49:79-83.
23. Barnhart RL, Belle G, Edland SD, et al. Geographically overlapping Alzheimer's disease registries: comparisons and implications. J Geriatr Psychiat Neural 1995;8:203-8.
24. Silagy CA, Campion K, McNeil JJ, Worsam B, Donnan GA, Tonkin AM. Comparison of recruitment strategies for a large-scale clinical trial in the elderly. J Clin Epidemiol 1991;44:1105-14.
25. Schleser R, West RL, Boatwright LK. A comparison of recruiting strategies for increasing older adults' initial entry and compliance in a memory training program. Int J Aging Hum Dev 1986-87;24:55-65.
26. Shtasel DL, Gur RE, Mozley D, et al. Volunteers for biomédical research. Recruitment and screening of normal controls. Arch Gen Psychiat 1991:48:1022-5.