Journal
JOURNAL OF AGING AND HEALTH
Volume 16, Issue 2, Pages 175-203Publisher
SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0898264303262639
Keywords
caregiving; recruitment; validity; subject participation; elderly
Categories
Funding
- NIA NIH HHS [N01-AG-1-2112, R01-AG-11171, R01-AG-18037, R01 AG018037] Funding Source: Medline
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Objectives: Studies of caregivers illustrate a classic sampling dilemma: maximizing recruitment without compromising study validity. Because caregivers are defined in relation to a care recipient, sampling methods are often determined by pragmatic decisions such as access, efficiency, and costs. However, overlooking validity may result in selection bias, misclassification of caregiver status, and the confounding of results. Validity and pragmatic concerns were compared in four caregiver studies that used different sampling frames.. community based, Alzheimer's disease registry, and ancillary studies to existing epidemiologic studies. Methods: Systematic comparison of validity and of pragmatic aspects of sampling frames, recruitment methods, and participation rates, with attention to caregiver identification, inclusion criteria, and sample restriction. Results: All studies used task-based inclusion criteria. Caregiver participation rates ranged from 81% to 96%, with higher rates in community-based and registry-based studies than in ancillary studies. The latter studies benefited from unbiased selection of noncaregivers. Discussion: Regardless of sampling frame, standard task-based inclusion criteria to define caregivers may enhance validity.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available