Methodological Challenges When Involving Children and Young People in Survey Research on Well-Being

  • Magda Nico
  • Nuno de Almeida Alves
  • Mariona Ferrer-Fons
  • Pau Serracant
  • Roger Soler-i-Martí
Part of the Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research book series (CHIR, volume 19)


In the light of results of qualitative fieldwork carried out with children and young people within the MYWeB project, in this chapter, we follow three themes: (1) That the problem of attrition in quantitative surveys has to be understood and tackled qualitatively; (2) That the issue of attrition in longitudinal quantitative studies relates not just the fact that the sample gets smaller and the results less robust over time, but also because the people who drop out of studies generally possess the very characteristics of the group for which the survey itself was ultimately developed; (3) That it is important to ensure that young people themselves are participating in the research project’s design and implementation. This chapter considers strategies for motivating those groups to participate in research on well-being from a longitudinal perspective. Topics and strategies discussed include data-collection processes, the use of incentives, the use of particular strategies to ensure the presence of certain social groups, and feedback on the impact of the research.


Longitudinal survey Attrition Children and young people Well-being 


  1. Almeida, A. N. de, Carvalho, D., Delicado, A., & Alves, N. d. A. (2012). Pela mão das crianças: Metodologias em construção. InAtas do VII Congresso Português de Sociologia. Porto: Junho.Google Scholar
  2. Almeida, A. N. de, Carvalho, D., & Delicado, A. (2017). Accessing children’s digital practices at home through visual methods: Innovations and challenges. In I. E. Castro, M. Swauger, & B. Harger (Eds.), Researching children and youth: Methodological issues, strategies, and innovations (pp. 349–374). London: Emerald.Google Scholar
  3. Alves, N. de A., & Nico, M. (2015). Portuguese report on interviews and focus groups from delivery partners, WP4: Direct engagement with children and young people (CYP).Google Scholar
  4. Bagnoli, A., & Clark, A. (2014). Focus groups with young people: A participatory approach to research planning. Journal of Youth Studies, 13(1), 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ben-Arieh, A. (2014). From child welfare to children well-being: What can we learn from children? Communication presented at the 2014 Hokenstad international lecture 60th CSWE 2014 Annual Program Meeting (APM); October 23–26, 2014, Tampa, Florida.Google Scholar
  6. Bonevski, B., Randell, M., Paul, C., Chapman, K., Twyman, L., Bryant, J., Brozek, I., & Hughes, C. (2014, March 25). Reaching the hard-to-reach: A systematic review of strategies for improving health and medical research with socially disadvantaged groups. BMC medical research methodology, 14, 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, P. (1985). Social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and Society, 14(6), 723–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cumming, J., & Goldstein, H. (2015). Handling attrition and non-response in longitudinal data with an application to a study of Australian youth. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 7(1), 53–63.Google Scholar
  9. Derosas, R. (2004). A family affair: Marriage, mobility, and living arrangements in nineteenth-century Venice, 1850–1869. In F. van Poppel, M. Oris, & J. Lee (Eds.), The road to independence. Leaving home in Western and Eastern societies, 16th–20th centuries. Bern: Peter Lang European Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Fitzgerald, J., Gottschalk, P., & Moffitt, R. (1998). An analysis of sample attrition in panel data. The Michigan panel study of income dynamics. The Journal of Human Resources, 33(2), 251–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldstein, H. (2009). Handling attrition and non-response in longitudinal data. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 1(1), 63–75.Google Scholar
  12. Groves, R. M., & Couper, M. P. (1998). Nonresponse in household interview surveys. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hanafin, S., Brooks, A. M., Roche, G., & Meaney, B. (2014). Methodological and ethical issues arising in carrying out research with children and young people. In R. Tourangeau, B. Edwards, T. P. Johnson, K. M. Wolter, & N. Bates (Eds.), Hard-to-survey populations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hoogendoorn, A., Lamers, F., Penninx, B., & Smit, J. (2013). Does a stepped approach using mixed-mode data collection reduce attrition problems in a longitudinal mental health study? Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 4(3), 242–257.Google Scholar
  15. Laurie, H., & Lynn, P. (2009). The use of respondent incentives on longitudinal surveys. In P. Lynn (Ed.), Methodology of longitudinal surveys. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Lepkowski, J. M., & Couper, M. P. (2002). Nonresponse in the second wave of longitudinal household surveys. In R. M. Groves et al. (Eds.), Survey nonresponse. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Lessof, C. (2009). Ethical issues in longitudinal surveys. In P. Lynn (Ed.), Methodology of longitudinal surveys. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Mason, J. (2006). Six strategies for mixing methods and linking data in social science research. ESRC National Centre for Research Methods. Accessed 14 Dec 2017.
  19. McGinley, P., Zhang, L., Hanks, L., & O’Neill, J. (2015). Reducing longitudinal attrition through Facebook. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 24(8), 894–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mostafa, T., & Wiggins, R. (2015). The impact of attrition and non response in birthcohorts studies: A need to incorporate missingness strategies. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 6(2), 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nicoletti, C., & Peracchi, F. (2002). A cross-country comparison of survey nonparticipation in the ECHP (ISER Working Papers, No. 2002–32). Colchester: University of Essex.Google Scholar
  22. Olsen, R. (2005, February). The problem of respondent attrition: Survey methodology is key. Labor. Monthly Review, 128(2), 64–70.Google Scholar
  23. Plewis, I. (2007). Non-response in a birth cohort study: The case of the millennium cohort study. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 10, 325–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Roberts, S. (2011). Beyond ‘NEET’ and ‘tidy’ pathways: Considering the missing middle of youth transitions studies. Journal of Youth Studies, 14(1), 21–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shaghaghi, A., Bhopal, R. S., & Sheikh, A. (2011). Approaches to recruiting ‘hard-to-reach’ populations into research: A review of the literature. Health Promotion Perspectives, 1(2), 86–94.Google Scholar
  26. Smith, P., Lynn, P., & Elliot, D. (2009). Sample design for longitudinal surveys. In P. Lynn (Ed.), Methodology of longitudinal surveys. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Soler-i-Martí, R., & Ferrer-Fons, M. (2015). Youth participation in context: The impact of youth transition regimes on political action strategies in Europe. The Sociological Review, 63, 92–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Uhrig, N. (2008). The nature and causes of attrition in the British household panel survey. Institute for Social and Economic Research. No. 2008–05.Google Scholar
  29. Wall, K., Almeida, A. N., Vieira, M. M., Cunha, V., (coords.), Rodrigues, L., Coelho, F., Leitão, M., & Atalaia, S. (2015). Impactos da crise nas crianças portuguesas: Indicadores, Políticas, Representações. Lisbon: Imprensa das Ciências Sociais.Google Scholar
  30. Watson, D. (2003). Sample attrition between waves 1 and 5 in the European Community household panel. European Sociological Review, 19(4), 361–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Magda Nico
    • 1
  • Nuno de Almeida Alves
    • 1
  • Mariona Ferrer-Fons
    • 2
  • Pau Serracant
    • 3
  • Roger Soler-i-Martí
    • 4
  1. 1.CIES-IULUniversity Institute of LisbonLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Department of Political and Social SciencesUniversitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF)BarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Catalan Youth Observatory (Catalan Youth Agency)BarcelonaSpain
  4. 4.Department of Political Science and Public LawUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations