Cited by 442Data Quality and ManagementSurvey Methodology and NonresponseStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

Best Practices in Data Cleaning: A Complete Guide to Everything You Need to Do Before and After Collecting Your Data

Osborne, Jason·2013·Sage eBooks

Abstract

Chapter 1. Why Data Cleaning is Important: Debunking the Myth of Robustness Part 1. Best Practices as you Prepare for Data Collection Chapter 2. Power and Planning for Data Collection: Debunking the Myth of Adequate Power Chapter 3. Being True to the Target Population: Debunking the Myth of Representativeness Chapter 4. Using Large Data Sets with Probability Sampling Frameworks: Debunking the Myth of Equality Part 2. Best Practices in Data Cleaning and Screening Chapter 5. Screening your Data for Potential Problems: Debunking the Myth of Perfect Data Chapter 6. Dealing with Missing or Incomplete Data: Debunking the Myth of Emptiness Chapter 7. Extreme and Influential Data Points: Debunking the Myth of Equality Chapter 8. Improving the Normality of Variables through Box-Cox Transformation: Debunking the Myth of Distributional Irrelevance Chapter 9. Does Reliability Matter? Debunking the Myth of Perfect Measurement Part 3. Advanced Topics in Data Cleaning Chapter 10. Random Responding, Motivated Mis-Responding, and Response Sets: Debunking the Myth of the Motivated Participant Chapter 11. Why Dichotomizing Continuous Variables is Rarely a Good Practice: Debunking the Myth of Categorization Chapter 12. The Special Challenge of Cleaning Repeated Measures Data: Lots of Pits to Fall into Chapter 13. Now that the Myths are Debunked... Visions of Rational Quantitative Methodology for the 21st Century

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4135/9781452269948

Cites

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?

  • Several variables demonstrated slight violations of the normality assumption (maximum skewness = -1.78, maximum kurtosis = -2.00).

    “Based on Osborne's (2013) criterion that skewness and kurtosis with absolute values smaller than 1 should not raise concern, several variables demonstrated slight violations of the normality assumption (maximum skewness = -1.78, maximum kurtosis = -2.00).”

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

Cited by 442

Authors
Osborne, J.
Corresponding author
Osborne, Jason
Venue
Sage eBooks
Published
2013
OpenAlex
W327170683
Cited by
442
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 59 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
7.35
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Sage eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Data Quality and Management
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
data cleaning, data screening, missing data, influential data points, Box-Cox transformation, normality, reliability statistics, response sets, dichotomization, repeated measures data, sample representativeness, statistical power, probability sampling

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