IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v45y2014icp82-89.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Web-based tracking methods in longitudinal studies

Author

Listed:
  • Williams, Izaak L.
  • O’Donnell, Clifford R.

Abstract

The use of online resources to reduce the attrition of program participants in longitudinal studies is examined. Higher-risk individuals, those involved in illegal activities, and females with last name changes are typically more difficult to locate. The effectiveness of using online resources for these participants is addressed. These resources include social networking sites, people-finder search engines, telephone and address directories, judicial records, and death records. The strengths and limitations of these resources are presented and discussed. Longitudinal studies using these resources are examined to evaluate their successful follow-up rates. The results of these studies indicate that participant characteristics are more important to successful follow-up than the length of time since participation or sample size. The use of multiple online sites increased follow-up rates, especially for those who are typically difficult to locate. The variables and websites to consider are discussed, and six lessons learned are offered. The prospective use of online participant involvement is especially important for successful longitudinal evaluation and program planning.

Suggested Citation

  • Williams, Izaak L. & O’Donnell, Clifford R., 2014. "Web-based tracking methods in longitudinal studies," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 82-89.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:45:y:2014:i:c:p:82-89
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.04.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718914000408
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.04.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cotter, Robert B. & Burke, Jeffrey D. & Stouthamer-Loeber, Magda & Loeber, Rolf, 2005. "Contacting participants for follow-up: how much effort is required to retain participants in longitudinal studies?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 15-21.
    2. Haggerty, Kevin P. & Fleming, Charles B. & Catalano, Richard F. & Petrie, Renee S. & Rubin, Ronald J. & Grassley, Mary H., 2008. "Ten years later: Locating and interviewing children of drug abusers," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 1-9, February.
    3. Shamena Anwar & Patrick Bayer & Randi Hjalmarsson, 2012. "The Impact of Jury Race in Criminal Trials," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(2), pages 1017-1055.
    4. David S. Abrams & Marianne Bertrand & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2012. "Do Judges Vary in Their Treatment of Race?," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(2), pages 347-383.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bujold, M. & El Sherif, R. & Bush, P.L. & Johnson-Lafleur, J. & Doray, G. & Pluye, P., 2018. "Ecological content validation of the Information Assessment Method for parents (IAM-parent): A mixed methods study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 79-88.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kevin Lang & Ariella Kahn-Lang Spitzer, 2020. "Race Discrimination: An Economic Perspective," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 34(2), pages 68-89, Spring.
    2. Bastien Michel & Camille Hémet, 2022. "Custodial versus non-custodial sentences: Long-run evidence from an anticipated reform," PSE Working Papers halshs-03899897, HAL.
    3. Shamena Anwar & Hanming Fang, 2015. "Testing for Racial Prejudice in the Parole Board Release Process: Theory and Evidence," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(1), pages 1-37.
    4. Simone Bertoli & Morgane Laouenan & Jérôme Valette, 2022. "Border Apprehensions and Federal Sentencing of Hispanic Citizens in the United States," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03818735, HAL.
    5. Shamena Anwar & Patrick Bayer & Randi Hjalmarsson, 2014. "The Role of Age in Jury Selection and Trial Outcomes," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(4), pages 1001-1030.
    6. Nicolás Grau & Damián Vergara, "undated". "A Simple Test for Prejudice in Decision Processes: The Prediction-Based Outcome Test," Working Papers wp493, University of Chile, Department of Economics.
    7. David Arnold & Will Dobbie & Peter Hull, 2022. "Measuring Racial Discrimination in Bail Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(9), pages 2992-3038, September.
    8. Shi, Ying & Zhu, Maria, 2022. "Equal time for equal crime? Racial bias in school discipline," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    9. Samantha Bielen & Peter Grajzl & Wim Marneffe, 2021. "Blame based on one's name? Extralegal disparities in criminal conviction and sentencing," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 469-521, June.
    10. Stone Celeste & Scott Leslie & Battle Danielle & Maher Patricia, 2014. "Locating Longitudinal Respondents After a 50-Year Hiatus," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 30(2), pages 1-24, June.
    11. Ash, Elliott & Asher, Sam & Bhowmick, Aditi & Bhupatiraju, Sandeep & Chen, Daniel L. & Devi, Tatanya & Goessmann, Christoph & Novosad, Paul & Siddiqi, Bilal, 2022. "Measuring Gender and Religious Bias in the Indian Judiciary," TSE Working Papers 22-1395, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    12. Samantha Bielen & Wim Marneffe & Naci H. Mocan, 2018. "Racial Bias and In-group Bias in Judicial Decisions: Evidence from Virtual Reality Courtrooms," NBER Working Papers 25355, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Jessica LaVoice & Domonkos F. Vamossy, 2019. "Racial Disparities in Debt Collection," Papers 1910.02570, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2023.
    14. Crystal S. Yang, 2015. "Free at Last? Judicial Discretion and Racial Disparities in Federal Sentencing," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(1), pages 75-111.
    15. Tobler, Amy L. & Komro, Kelli A., 2011. "Contemporary options for longitudinal follow-up: Lessons learned from a cohort of urban adolescents," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 87-96, May.
    16. Amartya Bose, 2020. "Racial disparities in law enforcement: The role of in-group bias and electoral pressures," Discussion Papers 2020-11, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    17. Hémet, Camille & Michel, Bastien, 2020. "Incarceration versus probation? Long-run evidence from an anticipated reform," CEPR Discussion Papers 15047, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Celislami, Elda & Kastoryano, Stephen & Mastrobuoni, Giovanni, 2023. "Strategic Bureaucratic Opacity: Evidence from Death Investigation Laws and Police Killings," IZA Discussion Papers 16609, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Philippe, Arnaud, 2017. "Gender disparities in criminal justice," TSE Working Papers 17-762, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    20. Vasudha Jain & Mark Whitmeyer, 2021. "Whose Bias?," Papers 2111.10335, arXiv.org.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:45:y:2014:i:c:p:82-89. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.