CONTACT US: Contact info
|
Citation |
Rubenstein E, Furnier S. Autism Adulthood 2021; 3(2): 120-128. |
|
Copyright |
(Copyright © 2021, Mary Ann Liebert Publishers) |
|
DOI |
|
PMID |
unavailable |
|
Abstract |
Internet-based online surveys are a crucial tool for researchers to learn about the understudied and often overlooked population of autistic adults. The recruitment and administration of online surveys can be cheaper, quicker, and have a wider reach compared with more traditional in-person methods. As online surveys become more prevalent, it is important to place strengths in the context of limitations and biases that can arise when recruiting and administering surveys online. In this perspective, we discuss two common issues that often appear in studies that use online tools to recruit and administer surveys to autistic adults and nonautistic volunteers: selection bias and sample identifiability. Selection bias is the distortion in effect estimates (e.g., relative risk, risk ratio, incidence rate) resulting from the factors that influence why a person chose to participate or how the researcher recruits and selects participants in a study. Sampling identifiability is the ability (or inability) to quantify and define the population of interest. We use a case example of an online survey study of suicidal ideation in autistic adults and describe how issues in selection bias and sample identifiability arise and may lead to challenges unique to studying autistic adults. We conclude with recommendations to improve the quality and utility of online survey research in autistic adults. Using online resources to recruit and collect data on autistic adults is an incredible tool with great potential; yet, authors need to consider the limitations, potential biases, and tools to overcome systematic error at each stage of the study. © Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. Language: en |
|
Keywords |
adult; human; Epidemiology; Suicide; Review; incidence; Bias; autism; suicidal ideation; risk factor; Autism spectrum disorder; controlled study; priority journal; health survey; online system; systematic error; selection bias; Online survey |