Question

1. If a researcher is interested in assessing change in a variable over a 15 year period (say, from age 5 to 20), why is it not a good idea to collect data, at one time, from people ages 5 through 20, as opposed to following up one group of participants for 15 years, starting at age 5?
   1. You would have to collect the data from elementary, middle, and high schools, as well as colleges, which would be costly
   2. You would have to collect data from a lot of people
   3. You are ignoring the possible influence of cohort effects
   4. Attrition is more of a problem

Answer 1

A researcher is interested in assessing change in a variable over a 15 year period, from age 5 to age 20.

Now, if he or she collects data at one time from people of ages 5 through 20, then it won't be a good idea.

This is because, people at 5 years age are present in the study at one point of time, people of ages 20 are at another stage, because we are doing this study at the same time.

So, people are actually falling out of the study, at some point of time; which means the researcher is limited to a smaller and less diverse study.

This is the problem of attrition.

So, the correct answer is option (d) Attrition is more of a problem.