Pragmatic and Internal Validity Issues in Sampling in Caregiver Studies: A Comparison of Population-Based, Registry-Based, and Ancillary Studies

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. How...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of aging and health 2004-04, Vol.16 (2), p.175-203
Main Authors: Fredman, Lisa, Tennstedt, Sharon, Smyth, Kathleen A., Kasper, Judith D., Miller, Baila, Fritsch, Thomas, Watson, Maura, Harris, Emily L.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
African Continental Ancestry Group
Aged
Aging
Alzheimer Disease
Bias
Caregivers
Caregivers - statistics & numerical data
Elderly
Eligibility Determination
Epidemiologic Studies
European Continental Ancestry Group
Female
Health technology assessment
Hispanic Americans
Humans
Male
Methodology (Data Collection)
Registries
Reproducibility of Results
Research Design
Research Methodology
Sampling
Selection Bias
Social research
Validity
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
ISSN:0898-2643
1552-6887
DOI:10.1177/0898264303262639