An evaluation of a self‐generated identification code

Abstract

We describe a self-generated coding form used in a study of HIV prevention practices of college students and provide information on the success rate of matching questionnaires over a 3-year period using the form. The data for this study were from a longitudinal study of HIV riskreduction practices of college students. In order to match questionnaires over the 3-year study period while maintaining anonymity, participants were asked to complete a self-generated identification form at each data collection point. In the second year of the project, we were able to successfully match 74.3% of the questionnaires to those returned during the first year using 6 to 8 of the code elements on the form, and in the third year, we were able to match 73% of questionnaires to those returned in the second year. Participants for whom questionnaires matched were more likely than participants with unmatched questionnaires to be white students enrolled as underclassmen.

Methodological Issues With Coding Participants in Anonymous Psychological Longitudinal Studies

“…When the self-generated identification code was required to match perfectly, match rates of 1% or less between waves were obtained. In contrast, other studies with SGICs with more carefully selected questions reported match rates ranging from 61.2% (DiIorio et al, 2000) to 94.7% (Kearney, 1984). Thus, the Wilson et al (2010) study highlights the importance of careful selection of the questions used to create SGICs.…”

“…''Errors'' counts (a) when elements were left blank or (b) elements did not perfectly match between time points but the participant could still be matched. DiIorio et al (2000) required Birth Month to perfectly match between waves, for a match to be recorded, hence the 0.0% match rate. It is not included in the average or N (studies) for birth month.…”

Matched and Fully Private? A New Self-Generated Identification Code for School-Based Cohort Studies to Increase Perceived Anonymity

“…For example, Agley et al (2021) tested an SGIC without personalized elements with a 2-week posttest. Conversely, some studies had periods of 18 months (Mc Alister & Gordon, 1986), 19 months (Isensee et al, 2012), or 24 months (Diiorio et al, 2000), but did not check whether or not matches were correct. Some authors claim that the longer the period of time that elapses between measures across time points, the smaller the matched proportion of participants (Kearney et al, 1984; Yurek et al, 2008).…”

Understanding the effects of jury service on jurors' trust in courts

“…We did not collect jurors' names at either Time 1 or Time 2 to preserve juror anonymity. Instead, we used a unique yet nonidentifiable ten‐digit code to match jurors' surveys at the two stages of the research process, a technique known as subject‐generated identification (Dilorio et al, 2000; Grube et al, 1989; Kearney et al, 1984). This technique is particularly useful when conducting research where assuring subjects' confidentiality is essential (McGloin et al, 1996; Schnell et al, 2010).…”