Cited by 1,381Statistical Methods in EpidemiologySurvey Methodology and NonresponseMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Recall bias in epidemiologic studies

Coughlin, Steven S.·1990·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

The factors which contribute to bias due to differential recall between cases and controls in retrospective studies have been little studied. A review of the literature on recall accuracy suggests that the extent of inaccurate recall is related to characteristics of the exposure of interest and of the respondents, though a distinction must be drawn between recall which is biased and that which is simply inaccurate. Interviewing technique and the study protocol, including the design of questionnaires and the motivation of respondents, play a central role and are under the control of the investigator. The results of validation studies carried out to date suggest that the likelihood of recall bias may be greater when recall is poor in general.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0895-4356(90)90060-3

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Coughlin, S. S.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Coughlin, Steven S.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1990-01
Volume
43
Issue
1
Pages
87-91
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1969606544
Cited by
1,381
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 108 · 2025: 101 · 2024: 109 · 2023: 93 · 2022: 96 · 2021: 117 · 2020: 108 · 2019: 75 · 2018: 76 · 2017: 67 · 2016: 50 · 2015: 41 · 2014: 46 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 32
FWCI
6.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
recall bias, retrospective analysis, case-control study, exposure measurement, interview techniques, questionnaire design, respondent motivation, validation studies
MeSH terms
Data Collection, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Memory, Mental Recall, Reproducibility of Results, Bias

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review