Avery, LisaRotondi, NooshinMcKnight, ConstanceFirestone, MichelleSmylie, JanetRotondi, Michael2020-03-092020-03-092019-10-29BMC Medical Research Methodology 19 (2019): 202.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0842-5https://hdl.handle.net/10315/37084Background: It is unclear whether weighted or unweighted regression is preferred in the analysis of data derived from respondent driven sampling. Our objective was to evaluate the validity of various regression models, with and without weights and with various controls for clustering in the estimation of the risk of group membership from data collected using respondent-driven sampling (RDS). Methods: Twelve networked populations, with varying levels of homophily and prevalence, based on a known distribution of a continuous predictor were simulated using 1000 RDS samples from each population. Weighted and unweighted binomial and Poisson general linear models, with and without various clustering controls and standard error adjustments were modelled for each sample and evaluated with respect to validity, bias and coverage rate. Population prevalence was also estimated. Results: In the regression analysis, the unweighted log-link (Poisson) models maintained the nominal type-I error rate across all populations. Bias was substantial and type-I error rates unacceptably high for weighted binomial regression. Coverage rates for the estimation of prevalence were highest using RDS-weighted logistic regression, except at low prevalence (10%) where unweighted models are recommended. Conclusions: Caution is warranted when undertaking regression analysis of RDS data. Even when reported degree is accurate, low reported degree can unduly influence regression estimates. Unweighted Poisson regression is therefore recommended.enAttribution 2.5 CanadaArticlehttps://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/https://www.biomedcentral.com/https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-019-0842-5