New Survey Questions and Estimators for Network Clustering with Respondent-Driven Sampling Data
Authors:
Ashton M. Verdery,
Jacob C. Fisher,
Nalyn Siripong,
Kahina Abdesselam,
Shawn Bauldry
Abstract:
Respondent-driven sampling (RDS) is a popular method for sampling hard-to-survey populations that leverages social network connections through peer recruitment. While RDS is most frequently applied to estimate the prevalence of infections and risk behaviors of interest to public health, like HIV/AIDS or condom use, it is rarely used to draw inferences about the structural properties of social netw…
▽ More
Respondent-driven sampling (RDS) is a popular method for sampling hard-to-survey populations that leverages social network connections through peer recruitment. While RDS is most frequently applied to estimate the prevalence of infections and risk behaviors of interest to public health, like HIV/AIDS or condom use, it is rarely used to draw inferences about the structural properties of social networks among such populations because it does not typically collect the necessary data. Drawing on recent advances in computer science, we introduce a set of data collection instruments and RDS estimators for network clustering, an important topological property that has been linked to a network's potential for diffusion of information, disease, and health behaviors. We use simulations to explore how these estimators, originally developed for random walk samples of computer networks, perform when applied to RDS samples with characteristics encountered in realistic field settings that depart from random walks. In particular, we explore the effects of multiple seeds, without vs. with replacement, branching chains, imperfect response rates, preferential recruitment, and misreporting of ties. We find that clustering coefficient estimators retain desirable properties in RDS samples. This paper takes an important step towards calculating network characteristics using non-traditional sampling methods, and it expands RDS's potential to tell researchers more about hidden populations and the social factors driving disease prevalence.
△ Less
Submitted 21 October, 2016;
originally announced October 2016.
Network Structure and Biased Variance Estimation in Respondent Driven Sampling
Authors:
Ashton M. Verdery,
Ted Mouw,
Shawn Bauldry,
Peter J. Mucha
Abstract:
This paper explores bias in the estimation of sampling variance in Respondent Driven Sampling (RDS). Prior methodological work on RDS has focused on its problematic assumptions and the biases and inefficiencies of its estimators of the population mean. Nonetheless, researchers have given only slight attention to the topic of estimating sampling variance in RDS, despite the importance of variance e…
▽ More
This paper explores bias in the estimation of sampling variance in Respondent Driven Sampling (RDS). Prior methodological work on RDS has focused on its problematic assumptions and the biases and inefficiencies of its estimators of the population mean. Nonetheless, researchers have given only slight attention to the topic of estimating sampling variance in RDS, despite the importance of variance estimation for the construction of confidence intervals and hypothesis tests. In this paper, we show that the estimators of RDS sampling variance rely on a critical assumption that the network is First Order Markov (FOM) with respect to the dependent variable of interest. We demonstrate, through intuitive examples, mathematical generalizations, and computational experiments that current RDS variance estimators will always underestimate the population sampling variance of RDS in empirical networks that do not conform to the FOM assumption. Analysis of 215 observed university and school networks from Facebook and Add Health indicates that the FOM assumption is violated in every empirical network we analyze, and that these violations lead to substantially biased RDS estimators of sampling variance. We propose and test two alternative variance estimators that show some promise for reducing biases, but which also illustrate the limits of estimating sampling variance with only partial information on the underlying population social network.
△ Less
Submitted 4 December, 2015; v1 submitted 19 September, 2013;
originally announced September 2013.
