ArticleSocial science computer review2025
Nonparticipation Bias in Accelerometer-Based Studies and the Use of Propensity Scores.
Article in Social science computer review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Device-Based Physical Activity Surveillance in Asian American Children and Adolescents: Participation and Activity Patterns in NHANES 2011-2014.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Associations between 24-hour movement behaviours and psychological wellbeing in adolescents using compositional data analysis.Journal of activity, sedentary and sleep behaviors · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Relatively little attention has been paid to the effects of nonparticipation on data quality in population-based studies that use accelerometers to measure physical activity. We examine these issues using data from the 2013 Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social Sciences (LISS) panel and 2013-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) accelerometer studies, both of which collected survey data in advance and therefore permit comparisons of self-reported physical activity between participants and nonparticipants to the accelerometer studies. While individuals with high levels of self-reported physical activity are overrepresented in the participant samples, the differences are modest in both studies. However, in the LISS panel this difference led to overestimates of physical activity that are not fully corrected by propensity score weighting adjustments (i.e., non-ignorable selection bias). This finding underscores the importance of assessing the potential influence of nonparticipation on accelerometer-derived estimates of physical activity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.