Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by CLARK, V. A
Right arrow Articles by MORGAN, T. M
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by CLARK, V. A
Right arrow Articles by MORGAN, T. M
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1983 Oxford University Press

research-article

Analysis of Non-Response in a Prospective Study of Depression in Los Angeles County

VIRGINIA A CLARK*, CAROL S ANESHENSEL**, RALPH R FRERICHS** and TIMOTHY M MORGAN*

* Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health University of California Los Angeles California 90024, USA
** Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health University of California Los Angeles California 90024, USA

The occurrence of depression in a probability sample of 1003 Los Angeles County adults was measured in a 1979–80 prospective cohort study. The primary measure of depression was the 20-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression (CES-D) scale. Of the original 1003 adults, 893 were successfully re-interviewed at a second time period (reasons for not being interviewed originally and at the second time period are given). Demographic data on those not re-interviewed are contrasted with data from those who did respond. The mean depression level and percentage classified as depressed at the first interview were higher in non-respondents than in respondents to the second interview. Techniques are given for assessing whether discontinued participation is due to exposure or disease factors. For this study, it was shown that dropping out of the study was mainly due to exposure (or demographic) factors and not to depression as such. Two methods for estimating the level of disease at the second time period for respondents and dropouts are illustrated.

Received 1 October 1982


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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am J EpidemiolHome page
A. Pirzada, L. L. Yan, D. B. Garside, L. Schiffer, A. R. Dyer, and M. L. Daviglus
Response Rates to a Questionnaire 26 Years after Baseline Examination with Minimal Interim Participant Contact and Baseline Differences between Respondents and Nonrespondents
Am. J. Epidemiol., January 1, 2004; 159(1): 94 - 101.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 International Journal of Social PsychiatryHome page
N. J. Booth and K. Lloyd
Stress in Farmers
International Journal of Social Psychiatry, March 1, 2000; 46(1): 67 - 73.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.