Methodological considerations in a community-based longitudinal study

American Journal of Health Behavior

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 58-68

  Oman, Roy F ^a   Vesely, Sara K ^a   Aspy, Cheryl B ^b   Fluhr, Janene ^a   Marshall, LaDonna ^c   Calhoun, George ^d   Rodine, Sharon ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy   (United States)

^d NONE

Author keywords

Community based longitudinal study; Retention; Sampling

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CHILD BEHAVIOR; DATA BASE; DEMOGRAPHY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FAMILY SIZE; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HIGH RISK BEHAVIOR; HUMAN; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MIDDLE AGED; PARENT; PATIENT SELECTION; POPULATION RESEARCH; UNITED STATES;

ADOLESCENT; ADOLESCENT BEHAVIOR; ADULT; CENSUSES; DATABASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS; EPIDEMIOLOGIC RESEARCH DESIGN; FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MIDDLE AGED; OKLAHOMA; PARENTS; PATIENT SELECTION; RESIDENCE CHARACTERISTICS; RISK-TAKING; SAMPLING STUDIES;

EID: 60749134524     PISSN: 10873244     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5993/AJHB.33.1.6     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Kegler M, Oman RF, Vesely S, et al. Relationships among youth assets and neighborhood and community resources. Health Educ Behav. 2005;32(3):380-397. (Pubitemid 40756614)
2. Bogenschneider K. An ecological risk/protective theory for building prevention programs, policies, and community capacity to support youth. Family Relations. 1996;45:127-138.
3. Allison K, Crawford I, Leon P, et al. Adolescent substance abuse: preliminary examinations of school and neighborhood context. Am J Community Psychol. 1999;27(2):111-141.
4. Gordis L. Causal criteria for assessing endocrine disruptors-a proposed framework. Epidemiology. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company 1996:123-129.
5. Robinson K, Dennison C, Wayman D, et al. Systematic review identifies number of strategies important for retaining study participants. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(8):757-765.
6. Davis L, Broome M, Cox R. Maximizing retention in community-based clinical trials. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2002;34(1):47-53. (Pubitemid 41755755)
7. Coday M, Boutin-Foster C, Goldman Sher T, et al. Strategies for retaining study participants in behavioral intervention trials: retention experiences of the NIH Behavior Change Consortium. Ann Behav Med. 2005;29(Suppl):55-65. (Pubitemid 40586355)
8. Hunt J, White E. Retaining and tracking cohort study members. Epidemiol Rev. 1998;20(1):57-70. (Pubitemid 28449753)
9. Faden V, Day N, Windle M, et al. Collecting Longitudinal Data Through Childhood, Adolescence, and Young Adulthood: Methodological Challenges. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2004;28(2):330-340. (Pubitemid 38233611)
10. Navratil J, Green S, Loeber R, Lahey B. Minimizing subject loss in a longitudinal study of deviant behavior. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 1994;3(1):89-106.
11. Clarke G. Methodological issues in outcome studies of school-based interventions for the prevention of adolescent depression. School Psychology Quarterly. 1993;8(4):255-263.
12. Oman RF, McLeroy K, Vesely S, et al. An adolescent age group approach to examining youth risk behaviors. Am J Health Promot. 2002;16(3):167-176. (Pubitemid 34074588)
13. The American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 3rd Edition. Leneza, Kansas: AAPOR; 2004.
14. Computer-Assisted Personal/Self-Interviewing (CAPI/CASI) [computer program]. Version (Ci3- Computerized Interviewing, Version 3).
15. Microsoft Access [computer program]. Version 2005: Microsoft Corporation; 2005.