Paper detail

Identification of homophily and preferential recruitment in respondent-driven sampling

Respondent-driven sampling (RDS) is a link-tracing procedure for surveying hidden or hard-to-reach populations in which subjects recruit other subjects via their social network. There is significant research interest in detecting clustering or dependence of epidemiological traits in networks, but researchers disagree about whether data from RDS studies can reveal it. Two distinct mechanisms account for dependence in traits of recruiters and recruitees in an RDS study: homophily, the tendency for individuals to share social ties with others exhibiting similar characteristics, and preferential recruitment, in which recruiters do not recruit uniformly at random from their available alters. The different effects of network homophily and preferential recruitment in RDS studies have been a source of confusion in methodological research on RDS, and in empirical studies of the social context of health risk in hidden populations. In this paper, we give rigorous definitions of homophily and preferential recruitment and show that neither can be measured precisely in general RDS studies. We derive nonparametric identification regions for homophily and preferential recruitment and show that these parameters are not point identified unless the network takes a degenerate form. The results indicate that claims of homophily or recruitment bias measured from empirical RDS studies may not be credible. We apply our identification results to a study involving both a network census and RDS on a population of injection drug users in Hartford, CT.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.