Annals of epidemiology · 2013
Influence of population versus convenience sampling on sample characteristics in studies of cognitive aging.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Brodaty Henry, Mothakunnel Annu, de Vel-Palumbo Melissa, Ames David, Ellis Kathryn A, Reppermund Simone, Kochan Nicole A, Savage Greg, Trollor Julian N, Crawford John, Sachdev Perminder S
Аннотация
PURPOSE: We examined whether differences in findings of studies examining mild cognitive impairment (MCI) were associated with recruitment methods by comparing sample characteristics in two contemporaneous Australian studies, using population-based and convenience sampling.
METHOD: The Sydney Memory and Aging Study invited participants randomly from the electoral roll in defined geographic areas in Sydney. The Australian Imaging, Biomarkers and Lifestyle Study of Ageing recruited cognitively normal (CN) individuals via media appeals and MCI participants via referrals from clinicians in Melbourne and Perth. Demographic and cognitive variables were harmonized, and similar diagnostic criteria were applied to both samples retrospectively.
RESULTS: CN participants recruited via convenience sampling were younger, better educated, more likely to be married and have a family history of dementia, and performed better cognitively than those recruited via population-based sampling. MCI participants recruited via population-based sampling had better memory performance and were less likely to carry the apolipoprotein E ε4 allele than clinically referred participants but did not differ on other demographic variables.
CONCLUSION: A convenience sample of normal controls is likely to be younger and better functioning and that of an MCI group likely to perform worse than a purportedly random sample. Sampling bias should be considered when interpreting findings.
METHOD: The Sydney Memory and Aging Study invited participants randomly from the electoral roll in defined geographic areas in Sydney. The Australian Imaging, Biomarkers and Lifestyle Study of Ageing recruited cognitively normal (CN) individuals via media appeals and MCI participants via referrals from clinicians in Melbourne and Perth. Demographic and cognitive variables were harmonized, and similar diagnostic criteria were applied to both samples retrospectively.
RESULTS: CN participants recruited via convenience sampling were younger, better educated, more likely to be married and have a family history of dementia, and performed better cognitively than those recruited via population-based sampling. MCI participants recruited via population-based sampling had better memory performance and were less likely to carry the apolipoprotein E ε4 allele than clinically referred participants but did not differ on other demographic variables.
CONCLUSION: A convenience sample of normal controls is likely to be younger and better functioning and that of an MCI group likely to perform worse than a purportedly random sample. Sampling bias should be considered when interpreting findings.