The consequences of respondent attrition in panel studies: A simulation based on the Rochester youth development study

Juvenile attitudes towards the police: The importance of subcultural involvement and community ties

“…It is important to note if there are any unique differences between those eliminated from the sample and those that remain; otherwise referred to as differential attrition. The problem of differential attrition in criminological research is well documented (Esbensen, Miller, Taylor, He, & Freng, 1999;Thornberry, Bjerregaard, & Miles, 1993), as studies have found that "at-risk" youth (i.e., those most likely to be delinquent and/or victimized) are more likely to drop out of longitudinal samples. By all measures, the analysis sample could be considered to be at "lower risk" than the attrition sample.…”

The Consequences of Selective Participation on Behavioral-Genetic Findings: Evidence from Simulated and Real Data

“…It was expected that mean levels would be attenuated for variables correlated with the liability to respond to the mail survey, such as socioeconomic deprivation (Thornberry et al, 1993). Based on the simulations, estimates of the shared environment were expected to be attenuated, and where the size of the shared environment effect was negligible, nonresponse was expected to induce artifactual nonadditive genetic effects.…”

Rethinking late and lost to follow-up participants: the New Zealand youth transitions study

“…Some studies have suggested that teens who terminate prematurely from longitudinal studies differ from those who continue, on both gender (Li, Stanton, and Feigelman 2000) and age (Wade, Treat, and Stuart 1998). Others have found that youth who are lost are exposed to greater levels of individual, family and community risk Journal of Youth Studies 629 (Chassin et al 1990;Li, Stanton, and Feigelman 2000;Richardson et al 2002;Sagatun et al 2008;Thornberry, Bjerregaard, and Miles 1993;Wade, Treat, and Stuart 1998;Weisman and Gottfredson 2001). On the other hand, there is evidence to suggest there are no significant differences between youth retained in studies and those lost (Leadbeater and Linares 1992;Malmberg et al 2012;Sagatun et al 2008;Selmer et al 2003).…”