China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Practical Considerations for Interpreting Change Following Brain Injury
Published in Mark R. Lovell, Ruben J. Echemendia, Jeffrey T. Barth, Michael W. Collins, Traumatic Brain Injury in Sports, 2020
Grant L. Iverson, Michael Gaetz
The neuropsychologist must be alert to the possibility that symptom inventories with athletes might not be fully accurate. Unlike the magnification of PCS symptoms that can occur with medical-legal assessment, the response tendency of some athletes is biased toward minimization or under-reporting of symptoms. The reasons for this response bias are numerous. There might be a desire to be a “team player,” putting the needs of the team ahead of the individual. There might be practical considerations, such as the reality in sport that the longer you are inactive, the greater the probability that your position on the roster will be assumed by a non-injured player. In addition, young male athletes in particular often present themselves outwardly as “invincible.”
Evaluating Federally-Funded Child Welfare Training Partnerships: A Worthwhile Challenge
Published in Katharine Briar-Lawson, Joan Levy Zlotnik, Evaluation Research in Child Welfare: Improving Outcomes Through University-Public Agency Partnerships, 2018
Survey response. In addition to collecting baseline data, evaluators conducting surveys of training graduates could take several steps to improve the rigor of their survey research. Evaluators could explain long-term research plans to program participants. Participants could be asked to provide contact persons who are likely to know their whereabouts over time. Such steps could improve survey response rates. Several studies in this issue were hindered by low survey response rates, often due to the lack of current contact information. In addition, survey researchers should use the baseline data collected from all program trainees to conduct tests for response bias. Tests for response bias would tell us how survey respondents differ from the non-respondents, and would aid in the interpretation of survey results. All studies should obtain data on all program participants to provide the opportunity to test for response bias, especially in the event of low survey response rates.
A
Published in Filomena Pereira-Maxwell, Medical Statistics, 2018
A type of bias that may arise when measuring outcomes or responses, often due to lack of blinding (on the part of those making assessments) as to the treatment received by a patient in a clinical trial, or as to an individual’s exposure status in a cohort study. Response bias on the part of study participants may be also largely due to lack of blinding. Both are more likely to occur when evaluation of the outcome of interest requires a subjective judgement. A possible solution is for a third party who is not aware of treatments given or received (or of exposure statuses) to make these assessments. Assessment bias may also occur in case-control studies, if those assessing exposure status are also aware of disease status. Assessment and response bias are special types of information bias.
Prevalence and risk factors of chronic low back pain in university athletes: a cross-sectional study
Published in The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 2023
Our study being a retrospective study, the findings might have been affected by recall bias. A response bias could have been created by acquiescence, socially desired responses, or excessive responses. We may have overestimated or underestimated the prevalence of CLBP due to both of these biases. Also, the analysis of prevalence rates in different sports disciplines should be interpreted carefully as it may have been affected by sample size effects. The likelihood of survivor bias is a major weakness of this study. Although the amount of CLBP-related disability in our sample was low to moderate, it is possible that athletes with higher levels of disability had abandoned training sessions and were not present when the researcher visited. A lack of studies reporting CLBP in sports has made the comparison difficult. Future studies may focus on the chronicity of LBP in sports.
The paediatric optometry alignment program – a model of interprofessional collaborative eyecare
Published in Clinical and Experimental Optometry, 2023
Ann L Webber, Lynne McKinlay, Dana Newcomb, Shuan Dai, Glen A Gole
The health service evaluation of the changed model of care reported here was limited to examination of (1) patient activity through secondary analysis of the administrative data; (2) patient/family perspectives and of the model through survey of families; and (3) professional experience through survey of participating optometrists. As a result, the perspective from a broader eyecare care professional stakeholders (e.g., ophthalmologists, orthoptists, GPs, paediatricians) was outside the scope of the pilot program evaluation. A limitation of the use of on-line surveys is the absence of information from those who did not complete the questionnaires. This introduces the risk of response bias. Potentially, those who responded may be more interested or more motivated or more favourable to the program.
The Clinical Usefulness of the Practice Resource for Driving after Stroke (PReDAS)
Published in Occupational Therapy In Health Care, 2023
April Vander Veen, Michael Cammarata, Sarah Renner, Liliana Alvarez
A limitation of the present study is the inclusion of a small, convenience sample specific to the geographical, cultural, and socioeconomic context of the region served by the acute care site where the PReDAS was piloted. Furthermore, at this explorative stage in the evaluation of the PReDAS, limited open-ended questionnaire data were collected from patient participants. Therefore, preliminary results cannot be generalized to other practice contexts. Additionally, all patient follow-up data was self-report. Consequently, response bias may have influenced results. However, this was mitigated by the inclusion of a research assistant outside of the circle of care and separate from the development of the PReDAS to administer the follow-up questionnaires. Additionally, the delayed follow-up (6 months to one year) does introduce the risk of errors in recall among patient participants. However, most questions in the follow-up questionnaire were pertaining to the patient’s current/recent situation (versus when in hospital) and most patients (90%) were able to correctly report their driver recommendations from acute care.