+1 (845) 317-8489 [email protected]

Discussion #4: U.S. Radiologic Technologists Study
The minimum word count for each reply is 50 words. Give feedback with the following in mind:
How does your colleagues post enhance the concept being discussed?
How do your colleagues statements compare and/or contrast with your own interpretation?
__________________________________________________
The purpose of this study was to investigate potential radiation-related health effects from low-dose occupational radiation exposure (National Cancer Institute). Since 1982, the survey has tracked 146,022 radiologic technologists in the U.S. (NCI). A cohort study is a study in which some specific group is studied over time, although the data may be collected from different members in each set of observation (Forister & Blessing, 2020, p. 252). Based on the definition, I believe this is a true cohort study due to the fact it was done over an extended period of time and that it included more than one group, current and former radiologic technologists and people from different entities like nuclear medicine and radiation therapy. This cohort consisted of 146,022 radiologic technologists who were certified by the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists (ARRT) from the 1920s until 1982, and these surveys were sent out periodically between 1983 and 2014 (NCI).
I also think the study was designed as a survey based on the size of the study and to limit the cost based on the size. Also, since the survey involved over 146,000 radiologic technologists over the U.S., sending out these surveys would probably yield a bigger response rate and participation. Upon further investigation, I believe this study is both qualitative and quantitative because I found the study to be controlled with lots of data given in numbers, which suggests quantitative, but I also found the study case-based with lots of categories, which suggests qualitative.
The response rate for the first survey was 90,305 (68%) with an additional 14,199 response via telephone survey. The second survey had a response rate of 90,972 (72%). The third survey yielded a 73,625 (72%) response and the fourth survey had 58,484 (62%) technologist response rate, as well as another 14,647 people completed a fluoroscopically-guided questionnaire and another 6,222 completed a nuclear medicine questionnaire (NCI). The changes between each survey may be due to how many technologists were still living and who completed at least one or more of the previous surveys.
In my opinion, I do not think there was any respondent bias based on my understanding because the survey was mailed to a specific group of people who should be the ones filling out the surveys and were the actual people being studied. I also do not believe there was investigator bias or a very minimal amount. Most of the survey was done by mail, but perhaps the small amount of telephone interviews could have a little bias due to the interviewers tone of voice or manner.