A comparison of two methods for recruiting children with an intellectual disability

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Standard

A comparison of two methods for recruiting children with an intellectual disability. / Adams, Dawn; Handley, Louise; Heald, Mary; Simkiss, Doug; Jones, Alison; Walls, Emily; Oliver, Chris.

In: Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 21.06.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{d69bb50c5e57451bb5516a9206d846e4,
title = "A comparison of two methods for recruiting children with an intellectual disability",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Recruitment is a widely cited barrier of representative intellectual disability research, yet it is rarely studied. This study aims to document the rates of recruiting children with intellectual disabilities using two methods and discuss the impact of such methods on sample characteristics.METHODS: Questionnaire completion rates are compared between (i) participants being approached in child development centre waiting rooms and (ii), one year later, the same participants being invited to take part by phone, email and/or post.RESULTS: The face-to-face recruitment method resulted in a better recruitment rate (58.5% compared to 18.5%) and a larger sample (n = 438) than the telephone/email/post sample (n = 40). It also required less hours of researcher time per completed questionnaire.CONCLUSIONS: In-line with previous research, recruitment of participants with intellectual disabilities (or their parents/carers) requires significant time and resources to get a sample of an acceptable size.",
author = "Dawn Adams and Louise Handley and Mary Heald and Doug Simkiss and Alison Jones and Emily Walls and Chris Oliver",
note = "{\textcopyright} 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.",
year = "2016",
month = jun,
day = "21",
doi = "10.1111/jar.12263",
language = "English",
journal = "Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities",
issn = "1360-2322",
publisher = "Wiley",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of two methods for recruiting children with an intellectual disability

AU - Adams, Dawn

AU - Handley, Louise

AU - Heald, Mary

AU - Simkiss, Doug

AU - Jones, Alison

AU - Walls, Emily

AU - Oliver, Chris

N1 - © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

PY - 2016/6/21

Y1 - 2016/6/21

N2 - BACKGROUND: Recruitment is a widely cited barrier of representative intellectual disability research, yet it is rarely studied. This study aims to document the rates of recruiting children with intellectual disabilities using two methods and discuss the impact of such methods on sample characteristics.METHODS: Questionnaire completion rates are compared between (i) participants being approached in child development centre waiting rooms and (ii), one year later, the same participants being invited to take part by phone, email and/or post.RESULTS: The face-to-face recruitment method resulted in a better recruitment rate (58.5% compared to 18.5%) and a larger sample (n = 438) than the telephone/email/post sample (n = 40). It also required less hours of researcher time per completed questionnaire.CONCLUSIONS: In-line with previous research, recruitment of participants with intellectual disabilities (or their parents/carers) requires significant time and resources to get a sample of an acceptable size.

AB - BACKGROUND: Recruitment is a widely cited barrier of representative intellectual disability research, yet it is rarely studied. This study aims to document the rates of recruiting children with intellectual disabilities using two methods and discuss the impact of such methods on sample characteristics.METHODS: Questionnaire completion rates are compared between (i) participants being approached in child development centre waiting rooms and (ii), one year later, the same participants being invited to take part by phone, email and/or post.RESULTS: The face-to-face recruitment method resulted in a better recruitment rate (58.5% compared to 18.5%) and a larger sample (n = 438) than the telephone/email/post sample (n = 40). It also required less hours of researcher time per completed questionnaire.CONCLUSIONS: In-line with previous research, recruitment of participants with intellectual disabilities (or their parents/carers) requires significant time and resources to get a sample of an acceptable size.

U2 - 10.1111/jar.12263

DO - 10.1111/jar.12263

M3 - Article

C2 - 27324565

JO - Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities

JF - Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities

SN - 1360-2322

ER -