查看文章

First I want to thank my colleagues for responding so passionately to my recently published article (Broadhead, 2008; Lansky & Mastro, 2008; Ouellet, 2008; Prachand & Benbow, 2008; Scott, 2008). The Journal Editors have presented me with the opportunity to reply. A close reading of the article should lead to the conclusion that I am not attacking respondent driven sampling (RDS) or people who use it, much less the people who “invented” it. As early as the abstract I clearly state my belief that RDS remains the best available means for sampling hidden populations. It does not follow, however, that RDS should be sheltered from critical scrutiny. My goal has been to examine RDS’s inner workings with an eye toward improving the method’s capacity for accruing representative samples while simultaneously maximizing human subject protections.