Cited by 1,050Psychometric Methodologies and TestingSurvey Methodology and NonresponseStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

Measuring bias in self-reported data

Open access
Rosenman, Robert, Tennekoon, Vidhura, Hill, Laura G.·2011·International Journal of Behavioural and Healthcare Research

Abstract

Response bias shows up in many fields of behavioural and healthcare research where self-reported data are used. We demonstrate how to use stochastic frontier estimation (SFE) to identify response bias and its covariates. In our application to a family intervention, we examine the effects of participant demographics on response bias before and after participation; gender and race/ethnicity are related to magnitude of bias and to changes in bias across time, and bias is lower at post-test than at pre-test. We discuss how SFE may be used to address the problem of 'response shift bias' - that is, a shift in metric from before to after an intervention which is caused by the intervention itself and may lead to underestimates of programme effects.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1504/ijbhr.2011.043414

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The study used a self-report survey with potential method biases ranging from misunderstanding of measures' purposes to social-desirability bias.

    “First, the study used a self-report survey with its well-known potential method biases ranging from a misunderstanding of measures' purposes to social-desirability bias (Rosenman, Tennekoon, & Hill, 2011).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rosenman, R., Tennekoon, V., & Hill, L. G.
Affiliations
Washington State University (US)
Corresponding author
Rosenman, Robert
Venue
International Journal of Behavioural and Healthcare Research
Published
2011
Volume
2
Issue
4
Pages
320
ISSN
  • 1755-3539 (ISSN-L)
  • 1755-3547
OpenAlex
W2078684842
Cited by
1,050
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 131 · 2025: 200 · 2024: 126 · 2023: 123 · 2022: 147 · 2021: 121 · 2020: 104 · 2019: 73 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Behavioural and Healthcare Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (R21DA025139, R21DA019758)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
response bias, self-reported data, response-shift bias, family intervention, gender differences, race and ethnicity, measurement bias, program evaluation

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