Skip Navigation

American Journal of Epidemiology 2005 161(4):401-402; doi:10.1093/aje/kwi056
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Voigt, L. F.
Right arrow Articles by Daling, J. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Voigt, L. F.
Right arrow Articles by Daling, J. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Copyright © 2005 by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

RE: "STUDIES WITH LOW RESPONSE PROPORTIONS MAY BE LESS BIASED THAN STUDIES WITH HIGH RESPONSE PROPORTIONS"

Lynda F. Voigt1,2, Denise M. Boudreau3,4, Noel S. Weiss1,2, Kathleen E. Malone1,2, Christopher I. Li1,2 and Janet R. Daling1,2

1 Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA.
2 Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
3 Center for Health Studies, Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, Seattle, WA.
4 Department of Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

We agree with Stang and Jöckel’s (1) conclusion that if exposure misclassification is substantial and increases with the difficulty of respondent recruitment, studies with low response proportions may be less biased than studies with high response proportions. However, Stang and Jöckel acknowledged that there had been no studies of the magnitude of such potential misclassification in relation to the difficulty of respondent recruitment. . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Public Opin QHome page
K. Olson
Survey Participation, Nonresponse Bias, Measurement Error Bias, and Total Bias
Public Opin Q, January 1, 2006; 70(5): 737 - 758.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J EpidemiolHome page
A. Stang and K.-H. Jockel
THE AUTHORS REPLY
Am. J. Epidemiol., February 15, 2005; 161(4): 403 - 403.
[Full Text] [PDF]