Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Overlooked Threats to Respondent Driven Sampling Estimators: Peer Recruitment Reality, Degree Measures, and Random Selection Assumption

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
AIDS and Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Intensive sociometric network data were collected from a typical respondent driven sample (RDS) of 528 people who inject drugs residing in Hartford, Connecticut in 2012–2013. This rich dataset enabled us to analyze a large number of unobserved network nodes and ties for the purpose of assessing common assumptions underlying RDS estimators. Results show that several assumptions central to RDS estimators, such as random selection, enrollment probability proportional to degree, and recruitment occurring over recruiter’s network ties, were violated. These problems stem from an overly simplistic conceptualization of peer recruitment processes and dynamics. We found nearly half of participants were recruited via coupon redistribution on the street. Non-uniform patterns occurred in multiple recruitment stages related to both recruiter behavior (choosing and reaching alters, passing coupons, etc.) and recruit behavior (accepting/rejecting coupons, failing to enter study, passing coupons to others). Some factors associated with these patterns were also associated with HIV risk.

Resumen

Se colectaron datos de redes socio métricas intensivas a partir de un tópico (MDE) Muestreo Dirigido por los Entrevistados de unas 528 personas que se inyectaban drogas que residen en xxx en2012–2013. Este conjunto de datos nos permitió analizar un gran número de nodos y arcos de red no observados. Y los vínculos con el fin de evaluar los supuestos comunes subyacentes MDE estimadores. Los resultados muestran que se han violado varios supuestos centrales para los estimadores MDE, como la selección aleatoria, la probabilidad de matriculación y el reclutamiento que ocurren sobre los lazos de red del reclutador. Estos problemas surgen de una conceptualización excesivamente simplista los procesos y las dinámicas de reclutamiento en pares. Se encontró que casi la mitad de los participantes fueron reclutados a través de la distribución de cupones. Los patrones no uniformes ocurrieron en etapas múltiples del reclutamiento relacionadas con el comportamiento del reclutador (pasando los cupones, etc.) Y el comportamiento de reclutamiento (aceptar/rechazar el cupón, no entrar en el estudio, pasar cupones a otros). Factores asociados con estos patrones también se asociaron con el riesgo de VIH.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Heckathorn DD. Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations. Soc Problems. 1997;44(2):174–99 PubMed PMID: ISI:A1997XE13900003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Heckathorn DD. Respondent-driven sampling II: deriving valid population estimates from chain-referral samples of hidden populations. Soc Problems. 2002;49(1):11–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Abdul-Quader AS, Heckathorn DD, McKnight C, Bramson H, Nemeth C, Sabin K, et al. Effectiveness of respondent-driven sampling for recruiting drug users in New York City: findings from a pilot study. J Urban Health. 2006;83(3):459–76 PubMed PMID: 16739048. Pubmed Central PMCID: 2527186. Epub 2006/06/02. eng.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Johnston LG, Sabin K, Mai TH, Pham TH. Assessment of respondent driven sampling for recruiting female sex workers in two Vietnamese cities: reaching the unseen sex worker. J Urban Health. 2006;83(6 Suppl):i16–28 PubMed PMID: 17031567. Pubmed Central PMCID: 1705478. Epub 2006/10/13. eng.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kral AH, Malekinejad M, Vaudrey J, Martinez AN, Lorvick J, McFarland W, et al. Comparing respondent-driven sampling and targeted sampling methods of recruiting injection drug users in San Francisco. J Urban Health. 2010;87(5):839–50 PubMed PMID: 20582573. Epub 2010/06/29. Eng.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Iguchi M, Ober A, Berry S, Fain T, Heckathorn D, Gorbach P, et al. Simultaneous recruitment of drug users and men who have sex with men in the United States and Russia using respondent-driven sampling: sampling methods and implications. J Urban Health. 2009;86:5–31.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Yeka W, Maibani-Michie G, Prybylski D, Colby D. Application of respondent driven sampling to collect baseline data on FSWs and MSM for HIV risk reduction interventions in two urban centres in Papua New Guinea. J Urban Health. 2006;83(6 Suppl):i60–72 PubMed PMID: 17066328. Pubmed Central PMCID: 1705546. Epub 2006/10/27. eng.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Malekinejad M, Johnston L, Kendall C, Kerr L, Rifkin M, Rutherford G. Using respondent-driven sampling methodology for HIV biological and behavioral surveillance in international settings: a systematic review. AIDS Behav. 2008;12:105–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Heckathorn DD. Extensions of respondent-driven sampling: analyzing continuous variables and controlling for differential recruitment. Sociol Methodol. 2007;37(1):151–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Salganik MJ, Heckathorn DD. Sampling and estimation in hidden populations using respondent-driven sampling. Sociol Methodol. 2004;34(1):193–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Volz E, Heckathorn DD. Probability based estimation theory for respondent driven sampling. J Off Stat. 2008;24(1):19.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gile KJ. Improved inference for respondent-driven sampling data with application to HIV prevalence estimation. J Am Stat Assoc. 2011;106(493):135–46.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Gile KJ, Handcock MS. Network model-assisted inference from respondent-driven sampling data. J R Stat Soc. 2015;178(3):619–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Heimer R. Critical issues and further questions about respondent-driven sampling: comment on Ramirez-Valles, et al. (2005). AIDS Behav. 2005;8(4):403–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Frost SDW, Brouwer K, Firestone Cruz M, Ramos R, Ramos ME, Lozada R, et al. Respondent-driven sampling of injection drug users in two U.S.—Mexico border cities: recruitment dynamics and impact on estimates of HIV and Syphilis prevalence. J Urban Health. 2006;83:83–97.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Johnston LG, Malekinejad M, Kendall C, Iuppa IM, Rutherford GW. Implementation challenges to using respondent-driven sampling methodology for HIV biological and behavioral surveillance: field experiences in international settings. AIDS Behav. 2008;12(4 Suppl):131–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Li J, Moorthi G, Mosher H, Obidoa C, Weeks M, Valente T. Skepticism about RDS inference validity: preliminary empirical findings from a recruitment dynamic and network study. In: American Public Health Association Annual Conference, November 2–6, Boston, MA, 2013.

  18. Gile KJ, Handcock MS. Respondent-driven sampling: an assessment of current methodology. Sociol Methodol. 2010;40(1):285–327.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Heckathorn DD. Comment: snowball versus respondent-driven sampling. Sociol Methodol. 2011;41(1):355–66.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Volz E, Wejner C, Degani I, Heckathorn DD. Respondent-driven sampling analysis tool (RDSAT) Version 5.6. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University; 2007.

  21. Lansky A, Abdul-Quader AS, Cribbin M, Hall T, Finlayson TJ, Garfein RS, et al. Developing an HIV behavioral surveillance system for injecting drug users: the National HIV behavioral surveillance system. Public Health Rep. 2007;122(1 Suppl):48–55 PubMed PMID: 17354527. Pubmed Central PMCID: 1804107. Epub 2007/03/16. eng.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Douglas DH, Cameron CJ. Network sampling: from snowball and multiplicity to respondent-driven sampling. Annu Rev Sociol. Forth coming.

  23. Aronow PM, Crawford FW. Nonparametric identification for respondent-driven sampling. Stat Probab Lett. 2015;106:100–2.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Handcock MS, Fellows IE, Gile KJ. RDS analyst: software for the analysis of respondent-driven sampling data. 0.42 ed: UCLA Statistics; 2014.

  25. Shi Y, Cameron CJ, Heckathorn DD. Model-based and design-based inference reducing bias due to differential recruitment in respondent-driven sampling. Sociol Methods Res. 2016;. doi:10.1177/0049124116672682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gregoire TG. Design-based and model-based inference in survey sampling: appreciating the difference. Can J For Res. 1998;28(10):1429–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sarndal C-E. Design-based and model-based inference in survey sampling1. Scand J Stat. 1978;5:27–52.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Goel S, Salganik MJ. Assessing respondent-driven sampling. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2010;107(15):6743–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Gile KJ, Johnston LG, Salganik MJ. Diagnostics for respondent-driven sampling. J R Stat Soc. 2015;178(1):241–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Skvoretz J, Agneessens F. Reciprocity, multiplexity, and exchange: measures. Qual Quant. 2007;41(3):341–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Krohn MD. The web of conformity: a network approach to the explanation of delinquent behavior. Soc Probl. 1986;33(6):s81–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Krohn MD, Massey JL, Zielinski M. Role overlap, network multiplexity, and adolescent deviant behavior. Social Psychol Q. 1988;51:346–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Fujimoto K, Valente TW. Multiplex congruity: friendship networks and perceived popularity as correlates of adolescent alcohol use. Soc Sci Med. 2015;125:173–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ramirez-Valles J, Douglas DH, Vazquez R, Diaz RM, Campbell RT. The fit between theory and data in respondent-driven sampling: response to Heimer. AIDS Behav. 2005;9(4):409–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. McCreesh N, Frost S, Seeley J, Katongole J, Tarsh MN, Ndunguse R, et al. Evaluation of respondent-driven sampling. Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass). 2012;23(1):138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Abdul-Quader AS, Heckathorn DD, Sabin K, Saidel T. Implementation and analysis of respondent driven sampling: lessons learned from the field. J Urban Health. 2006;83(6 Suppl):i1–5 PubMed PMID: 17058119. Pubmed Central PMCID: 1705522. Epub 2006/10/24. eng.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Uuskula A, Johnston LG, Raag M, Trummal A, Talu A, Des Jarlais DC. Evaluating recruitment among female sex workers and injecting drug users at risk for HIV using respondent-driven sampling in Estonia. J Urban Health. 2010;87(2):304–17 PubMed PMID: 20131018. Pubmed Central PMCID: 2845833. Epub 2010/02/05. eng.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Gwadz MV, Leonard NR, Cleland CM, Riedel M, Banfield A, Mildvan D. The effect of peer-driven intervention on rates of screening for AIDS clinical trials among African Americans and Hispanics. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(6):1096–102.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Liu H, Li J, Ha T, Li J. Assessment of random recruitment assumption in respondent-driven sampling in egocentric network data. Soc Netw. 2012;1(2):13.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Friedman SR, Kottiri BJ, Neaigus A, Curtis R, Vermund SH, Des Jarlais DC. Network-related mechanisms may help explain long-term HIV-1 seroprevalence levels that remain high but do not approach population-group saturation. Am J Epidemiol. 2000;152(10):913–22 PubMed PMID: 11092433.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Neaigus A, Friedman SR, Curtis R, Jarlais DCD, Furst RT, Jose B, et al. The relevance of drug injectors’ social and risk networks for understanding and preventing HIV infection. Soc Sci Med. 1994;38(1):67–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Latkin CA. A personal network approach to AIDS prevention: an experimental peer group intervention for street-injecting drug users: the SAFE study. NIDA Res Monogr. 1995;151:181–95.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. El-Bassel N, Cooper DK, Chen DR, Schilling RF. Personal social networks and HIV status among women on methadone. AIDS Care. 1998;10(6):735–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Lakon CM, Ennett ST, Norton EC. Mechanisms through which drug, sex partner, and friendship network characteristics relate to risky needle use among high risk youth and young adults. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63:2489–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Latkin CA, Mandell W, Oziemkowska M, Vlahov D, Celentano D. The relationships between sexual behavior, alcohol use, and personal network characteristics among injecting drug users in Baltimore, Maryland. Sex Transm Dis. 1994;21(3):161–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Shaw SY, Shah L, Jolly AM, Wylie JL. Determinants of injection drug user (IDU) syringe sharing: the relationship between availability of syringes and risk network member characteristics in Winnipeg, Canada. Addiction. 2007;102(10):1626–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Sherman SG, Latkin CA, Gielen AC. Social factors related to syringe sharing among injecting partners: a focus on gender. Subst Use Misuse. 2001;36(14):2113–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Li J, Weeks MR, Convey M, editors. The social relationship context and cultural perspective of injection risk, a comparison between US and Chinese injection drug users. In: Society for Prevention Research 16th annual meeting: context and prevention science; 27–30, May 2008, San Francisco, CA.

  49. Valente TW, Vlahov D. Selective risk taking among needle exchange participants: implications for supplemental interventions. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(3):406–11.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Lansky A, Drake A, Pham H. HIV-associated behaviors among injecting-drug users-23 cities, United States, May 2005–February 2006. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2009;58(13):329–32.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Johnston LG, Whitehead S, Simic-Lawson M, Kendall C. Formative research to optimize respondent-driven sampling surveys among hard-to-reach populations in HIV behavioral and biological surveillance: lessons learned from four case studies. AIDS Care. 2010;22(6):784–92 PubMed PMID: 20467937. Epub 2010/05/15. eng.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Magnani R, Sabin K, Saidel T, Douglas DH. Review of sampling hard-to-reach and hidden populations for HIV suveillance. AIDS. 2005;19(suppl 2):S67–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Trotter RT II, Bowen AM, Potter JM Jr. Network models for HIV outreach and prevention programs for drug users. NIDA Res Monogr Ser. 1995;151:144–80 PubMed PMID: 8742765.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Mitchell JC. The concept and use of social networks. In: Mitchell JC, editor. Social networks in Urban Situations: analysis of personal relationships in Central African Towns. Manchester: Manchester University Press; 1969. p. 1–50.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Granovetter MS. The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol. 1973;78(6):1360–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Maguire L. Understanding social networks. Beverly Hills: Sage; 1983. p. 119.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Marsden PV, Campbell CE. Measuring tie strength. Soc Forces. 1984;63(2):482–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Weeks MR, Li J, Dickson-Gomez J, Convey M, Martinez M, Radda K, et al. Outcomes of a peer HIV prevention program with injection drug and crack users: the risk avoidance partnership. Subst Use Misuse. 2009;44(2):253–81.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Weeks MR, Clair S, Borgatti SP, Radda K, Schensul JJ. Social networks of drug users in high-risk sites: finding the connections. AIDS Behav. 2002;6(2):193–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Li J, Weeks MR, Borgatti SP, Clair S, Dickson-Gomez J. A social network approach to demonstrate the diffusion and change process of intervention from peer health advocates to the drug using community. Subst Use Misuse. 2012;47(5):474–90 Epub March 18.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Duke M, Li J, Singer. M. Drug use, syringe sharing and HIV risk in the People’s Republic of China. In: Pope C, White R, Malow R, editors. HIV/AIDS: Global frontiers in prevention/intervention. New York, London: Rutledge; 2008. pp. 40–49.

  62. Bell DC, Belli-McQueen B, Haider A. Partner naming and forgetting: recall of network members. Soc Netw. 2007;29(2):279–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Brewer DD, Garrett SB, Kulasingam S. Forgetting as a cause of incomplete reporting of sexual and drug injection partners. Sex Transm Dis. 1999;26(3):166–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Brewer DD, Webster CM. Forgetting of friends and its effects on measuring friendship networks. Soc Netw. 2000;21(4):361–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Young AM, Rudolph AE, Su AE, King L, Jent S, Havens JR. Accuracy of name and age data provided about network members in a social network study of people who use drugs: implications for constructing sociometric networks. Ann Epidemiolo. 2016;26(11):802–9.

  66. Bartunov S, Korshunov A, Park S-T, Ryu W, Lee H, editors. Joint link-attribute user identity resolution in online social networks. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, workshop on social network mining and analysis ACM, 2012.

  67. Vosecky J, Hong D, Shen VY, editors. User identification across multiple social networks. Networked Digital Technologies, 2009 NDT’09 First International Conference on, 2009: IEEE.

  68. Bilgic M, Licamele L, Getoor L, Shneiderman B, editors. D-dupe: An interactive tool for entity resolution in social networks. Visual analytics science and technology, 2006 IEEE Symposium On, 2006: IEEE.

  69. Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC. Ucinet for windows: software for social network analysis. Harvard: Analytic Technologies; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Borgatti SP. NetDraw: graph visualization software. Harvard: Analytic Technologies; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. National Health Behavior Suvilliance Injection Drug User Cycle Survey Instrument. 2005.

  72. Rudolph AE, Young AM, Lewis CF. Assessing the geographic coverage and spatial clustering of illicit drug users recruited through respondent-driven sampling in New York City. J Urban Health. 2015;92(2):352–78.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Young AM, Rudolph AE, Quillen D, Havens JR. Spatial, temporal and relational patterns in respondent-driven sampling: evidence from a social network study of rural drug users. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2014;68(8):792–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Salganik M. Variance estimation, design effects, and sample size calculations for respondent-driven sampling. J Urban Health. 2006;83:98–112.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Moorthi G, Li J, Mosher H, Weeks M. An ethnographic exploration of RDS coupon distribution dynamics: motativation constraints and contexual factors. In: International network for social network analysis annual meeting, 18–23 Feburary, St. Pete Beach, Florida2014.

  76. Valente TW, Zogg JB, Christensen S, Richardson J, Kovacs A, Operskalski E. Using social networks to recruit an HIV vaccine preparedness cohort. J Acq Immun Def Synd. 1999;52(4):514.

  77. Mosher HI, Moorthi G, Li J, Weeks MR. A qualitative analysis of peer recruitment pressures in respondent driven sampling: are risks above the ethical limit? Int J Drug Policy. 2015;26(9):832–42.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Semaan S, Santibanez S, Garfein RS, Heckathorn DD, Des Jarlais DC. Ethical and regulatory considerations in HIV prevention studies employing respondent-driven sampling. Int J Drug Policy. 2009;20(1):14–27 PubMed PMID: 18243679. Epub 2008/02/05. eng.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. DeJong J, Mahfoud Z, Khoury D, Barbir F, Afifi RA. Ethical considerations in HIV/AIDS biobehavioral surveys that use respondent-driven sampling: illustrations from Lebanon. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(9):1562–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Verdery AM, Mouw T, Bauldry S, Mucha PJ. Network structure and biased variance estimation in respondent driven sampling. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(12):e0145296.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Crawford FW, Aronow PM, Zeng L, Li J. Identification of homophily and preferential recruitment in respondent-driven sampling. Am J Epidemiol. 2017. doi:10.1093/aje/kwx208.

  82. Lu X. Linked ego networks: improving estimate reliability and validity with respondent-driven sampling. Soc Netw. 2013;35(4):669–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Mouw T, Verdery AM. Network sampling with memory a proposal for more efficient sampling from social networks. Sociol Methodol. 2012;42(1):206–56.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are extremely grateful to our study participants who shared extensive network and other sensitive information with us. We appreciated Forrest Crawford and two anonymous reviewers’ helpful insights. We also thank many student interns who assisted in various aspects of data collection and processing. They are: Mark Romano, Jason Weiss, Shajeda Chowdhury, Irene Shaver, Mengjia Li, Nina Soar, Barbara Byrne, David Andrew, Loren Sanchez-Radda, Hayley Berg, and Raymond Li. The study is supported by award R01DA031594 from the National Institute of Drug Abuse. It is affiliated with the Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS (P30 MH62294). AZ would like to acknowledge the NIDA career development award K01 DA37826. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Drug Abuse or the National Institute on Mental Health.

Funding

This study was funded by National Institute of Drug Abuse, Grant Number R01DA031594.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Community Research, 2 Hartford Square West, Suite 100, Hartford, CT, 06106, USA

    Jianghong Li, Margaret Weeks, Gayatri Moothi, Heather Mosher, Eduardo Robles, Greg Palmer & Chinekwu Obidoa

  2. Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Thomas W. Valente & Hee-Sung Shin

  3. School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

    Robert Heimer

  4. Section of Infectious Diseases, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA

    Alexei Zelenev

Authors
  1. Jianghong Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas W. Valente
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hee-Sung Shin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Margaret Weeks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alexei Zelenev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gayatri Moothi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Heather Mosher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Robert Heimer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Eduardo Robles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Greg Palmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Chinekwu Obidoa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jianghong Li.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, J., Valente, T.W., Shin, HS. et al. Overlooked Threats to Respondent Driven Sampling Estimators: Peer Recruitment Reality, Degree Measures, and Random Selection Assumption. AIDS Behav 22, 2340–2359 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-017-1827-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-017-1827-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation