Commentary
Investigator bias and interviewer bias: The problem of reporting systematic error in epidemiology

https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(94)90184-8Get rights and content

Abstract

Epidemiologists recognize that systematic errors in the design or conduct of a study may bias the results. Information on the exposure of interest may be especially prone to misclassification. Even information that has been well-documented may be reported incorrectly. Study subjects may have difficulty recalling past exposures or behaviors, or may provide responses based on wishful thinking. The nature and importance of these biases is not always fully considered by investigators in their data analysis and in their investigation. This paper reviews the most common type of biases and cites examples of how the responses of subjects substantially affect study results.

References (18)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (25)

  • The Student Engagement Effect of Team-Based Learning on Student Pharmacists

    2022, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education
  • Hair Coloring, Stress, and Smoking Increase the Risk of Breast Cancer: A Case-Control Study

    2017, Clinical Breast Cancer
    Citation Excerpt :

    These variables are mainly covering important past or usual psychosocial aspects of the interviewee's life, about which self-reporting seems to be convincingly valid.60,61 Moreover, the type of control selection (referral hospital controls) will help in reducing the recall bias.62 The authors have stated that they have no conflicts of interest.

  • A comparison between self-reported and GIS-based proxies of residential exposure to environmental pollution in a case-control study on lung cancer

    2014, Spatial and Spatio-temporal Epidemiology
    Citation Excerpt :

    Both methodologies suffer from possible errors. The collection of both exposure and disease data from questionnaires may be prone to so-called recall bias (Coughlin, 1990; Piro et al., 2008) and interviewer bias (Wynder, 1994), and this could lead to errors in risk estimations (Kuehni et al., 2006; Rugbjerg et al., 2011). In this sense, the use of GIS is a promising development since it yields more objective exposure readings.

  • Recent and Lifelong Sexual Dysfunction in a Female UK Population Sample: Prevalence and Risk Factors

    2011, Journal of Sexual Medicine
    Citation Excerpt :

    However, the significant associations remained consistent throughout the different analyses, increasing the probability that they are true findings. We cannot exclude the possibility that our data are affected by reporting biases given the sensitive nature of the questions leading to some underestimation of sexual distress and FSD symptoms [34]. However, while our response rates might appear low (50%), they are in fact respectable relative to other epidemiological‐level sex surveys [32,35,36].

  • Ernst Wynder: A remembrance

    2006, Preventive Medicine
View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text