Adjusting for attrition in school-based samples : bias, precision, and cost trade-offs of three methods
Attrition in longitudinal studies can introduce nonresponse bias. Using data from a multi-wave school-based study of adolescents, the authors compare substance-use estimates across methods, validate methods to correct for nonresponse by seeing how well they "postdict" known overall sample baseline values, and calculate the relative efficiency of each approach with respect to a known "gold standard." In these data, weighting for non-response worked very well, but sample-selection modeling requires assumptions that are not met in this setting, and severe bias results. The high costs associated with full nonrespondent tracking efforts may be avoidable if weighting works as well as it did here.
Originally published in: Evaluation Review, v. 21. no. 5, October 1997, pp. 554-567.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Reprint series. The Reprint was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1992 to 2011 that represented previously published journal articles, book chapters, and reports with the permission of the publisher. RAND reprints were formally reviewed in accordance with the publisher's editorial policy and compliant with RAND's rigorous quality assurance standards for quality and objectivity. For select current RAND journal articles, see External Publications.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.