Evaluation Review

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click Here for More Information

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Foster, E. M.
Right arrow Articles by Bickman, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Foster, E. M.
Right arrow Articles by Bickman, L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Evaluation Review, Vol. 20, No. 6, 695-723 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X9602000603

An Evaluator's Guide To Detecting Attrition Problems

E. Michael Foster

Vanderbilt University

Leonard Bickman

Vanderbilt University

This article reviews simple methods for detecting problematic attrition (nonresponse) in longitudinal evaluations. It begins by discussing nonresponse more generally and considers three situations that the evaluator is likely to encounter: (a) simple cross-sectional comparisons of treatment and control groups, (b) regression-based analyses of cross-sectional data on treatment and control groups, and (c) regression-based analyses of data from a longitudinal evaluation. The last is the focus of this article; the first 2 are discussed to provide the reader with the necessary background The article then discusses means of detecting attrition problems in longitudinal evaluations Model-based solutions are computationally demanding, but the article discusses simple tests for detecting problematic attrition. These methods are then illustrated using data from the Fort Bragg Evaluation, a longitudinal evaluation of a major demonstration in the field of children's mental health services. The analyses presented here do not suggest that attrition distorted the findings of that evaluation.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eval RevHome page
E. M. Foster, G. Y. Fang, and Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group
Alternative Methods for Handling Attrition: An Illustration Using Data from the Fast Track Evaluation
Eval Rev, October 1, 2004; 28(5): 434 - 464.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Sociological Methods ResearchHome page
J. MIROWSKY and J. R. REYNOLDS
Age, Depression, and Attrition in the National Survey of Families and Households
Sociological Methods Research, May 1, 2000; 28(4): 476 - 504.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 American Journal of EvaluationHome page
P. M. Harris
Attrition Revisited
American Journal of Evaluation, September 1, 1998; 19(3): 293 - 305.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Eval RevHome page
K.A. McGuigan, P.L. Ellickson, R.D. Hays, and R.M. Bell
Adjusting for Attrition in School-Based Samples: Bias, Precision, and Cost Trade-Offs of Three Methods
Eval Rev, October 1, 1997; 21(5): 554 - 567.
[Abstract] [PDF]