OBJECTIVES: We assessed how frequently researchers reported the use of statistical techniques that take into account the complex sampling structure of survey data and sample weights in published peer-reviewed articles using data from 3 commonly used adolescent health surveys. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of 1003 published empirical research articles from 1995 to 2010 that used data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (n=765), Monitoring the Future (n=146), or Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (n=92) indexed in ERIC, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science. RESULTS: Across the data sources, 60% of articles reported accounting for design effects and 61% reported using sample weights. However, the frequency and clarity of reporting varied across databases, publication year, author affiliation with the data, and journal. CONCLUSIONS: Given the statistical bias that occurs when design effects of complex data are not incorporated or sample weights are omitted, this study calls for improvement in the dissemination of research findings based on complex sample data. Authors, editors, and reviewers need to work together to improve the transparency of published findings using complex sample data.
OBJECTIVES: We assessed how frequently researchers reported the use of statistical techniques that take into account the complex sampling structure of survey data and sample weights in published peer-reviewed articles using data from 3 commonly used adolescent health surveys. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of 1003 published empirical research articles from 1995 to 2010 that used data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (n=765), Monitoring the Future (n=146), or Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (n=92) indexed in ERIC, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science. RESULTS: Across the data sources, 60% of articles reported accounting for design effects and 61% reported using sample weights. However, the frequency and clarity of reporting varied across databases, publication year, author affiliation with the data, and journal. CONCLUSIONS: Given the statistical bias that occurs when design effects of complex data are not incorporated or sample weights are omitted, this study calls for improvement in the dissemination of research findings based on complex sample data. Authors, editors, and reviewers need to work together to improve the transparency of published findings using complex sample data.
Authors: Nancy D Brener; Laura Kann; Steven A Kinchen; Jo Anne Grunbaum; Laura Whalen; Danice Eaton; Joseph Hawkins; James G Ross Journal: MMWR Recomm Rep Date: 2004-09-24
Authors: Matthew C Farrelly; Kevin C Davis; M Lyndon Haviland; Peter Messeri; Cheryl G Healton Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: David M Murray; Sherri L Pals; Jonathan L Blitstein; Catherine M Alfano; Jennifer Lehman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-03-25 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Claire Adams Spears; Dina M Jones; Scott R Weaver; Bo Yang; Terry F Pechacek; Michael P Eriksen Journal: Addiction Date: 2018-11-05 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Oliver Kuss; Heiko Becher; Andreas Wienke; Till Ittermann; Stefan Ostrzinski; Sabine Schipf; Carsten O Schmidt; Michael Leitzmann; Tobias Pischon; Lilian Krist; Stephanie Roll; Matthias Sand; Hermann Pohlabeln; Stefan Rach; Karl-Heinz Jöckel; Andreas Stang; Ulrich A Mueller; Andrea Werdecker; Ronny Westerman; Karin H Greiser; Karin B Michels Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2022-06-02 Impact factor: 12.434
Authors: Elizabeth M Badley; Jessica M Wilfong; Christina H Chan; Mayilee Canizares; Anthony V Perruccio Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-06-21 Impact factor: 3.752