Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Oct 24;18(1):114.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0575-x.

Engaging military couples in marital research: does requesting referrals from service members to recruit their spouses introduce sample bias?

Collaborators, Affiliations

Engaging military couples in marital research: does requesting referrals from service members to recruit their spouses introduce sample bias?

Hope Seib McMaster et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: While enrolling dyads in research studies is not uncommon, there is limited literature on the utility of different recruitment strategies and the resulting selection biases. This paper examined two recruitment strategies used to enroll military couples in a longitudinal study, assessing the impact of both strategies on the representativeness of the final study sample.

Method: Descriptive and bivariate analyses were conducted to 1) identify characteristics associated with spouse referral, 2) compare response rates based on recruitment strategy and assess whether recruitment strategy modified correlates of response propensity among spouses, and 3) assess whether referred spouse characteristics differed from non-referred spouses in the final sample. The study sample consisted of married US service members with 2-5 years of military service as of October 2011 and their spouses.

Results: Service members who referred their spouses to participate in the Millennium Cohort Family Study were more likely to be male, have children, serve in the Army, and have combat deployment experience than those who did not refer their spouse. Nearly two-thirds (n = 5331, 64.9%) of referred spouses participated in the Family Study, compared with less than one-third (n = 3458, 29.5%) of directly contacted spouses. Spouse characteristics also differed significantly between recruitment groups.

Conclusions: Overall results suggest that minimal bias was introduced by using a referral recruitment methodology. Service members appeared to be more likely to refer their spouses if they perceived the research topic as relevant to their spouse, such that male service members with combat deployment experience were more likely to refer female spouses caring for multiple children. Referred spouses were significantly more likely to respond to the Millennium Cohort Family Study survey than those who were directly contacted; however, the overall success rate of using a referral strategy was less than recruiting spouses through direct contact. Differences between referred spouses and spouses contacted directly mirrored service member referring characteristics.

Keywords: Couples; Dyad; Epidemiology; Methods; Military; Recruitment; Referral; Research; Study methodology; Survey.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Human subjects participated in this study after giving their free and informed written consent. This research has been conducted in compliance with all applicable federal regulations governing the protection of human subjects in research. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Naval Health Research Center, San Diego, CA (Protocol NHRC.2000.0007).

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Karney BR, Bradbury TN. The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: a review of theory, method, and research. Psychol Bull. 1995;118(1):3–34. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Thompson L, Walker AJ. The dyad as the unit of analysis: conceptual and methodological issues. J Marriage Fam. 1982;44(4):889–900. doi: 10.2307/351453. - DOI
    1. Paulussen-Hoogeboom MC, Stams GJ, Hermanns JM, Peetsma TT. Child negative emotionality and parenting from infancy to preschool: a meta-analytic review. Dev Psychol. 2007;43(2):438–453. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.43.2.438. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Whiteman SD, Loken E. Comparing analytic techniques to classify dyadic relationships: an example using siblings. J Marriage Fam. 2006;68(5):1370–1382. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00333.x. - DOI
    1. Quinn C, Dunbar SB, Clark PC, Strickland OL. Challenges and strategies of dyad research: cardiovascular examples. Appl Nurs Res. 2010;23(2):e15–e20. doi: 10.1016/j.apnr.2008.10.001. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms