Inferring health interview response bias from imperfect record checks
Expert InsightsPublished 1978
Results of incomplete criterion validity checks can be misinterpreted. The kind of design incompleteness potentially determines the sign of the response bias estimate. The amount of random error can determine the magnitude of the bias estimate. Published record check estimates of average response bias in reporting hospitalization episodes are used to illustrate the interpretation pitfalls. A common modification to an incomplete record check design is shown to have failed, in one case, to remove the effects of the design bias. Record check evidence for the proxy and memory decay response biases is reexamined. The reexamination suggests these biases may be small or nonexistent in survey reports of hospitalization.
Document Details
- Copyright: RAND Corporation
- Availability: Web Only
- Year: 1978
- Pages: 25
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.7249/pubs
- Document Number: P-6159
Citation
RAND Style Manual
Chicago Manual of Style
This publication is part of the RAND paper series. The paper series was a product of RAND from 1948 to 2003 that captured speeches, memorials, and derivative research, usually prepared on authors' own time and meant to be the scholarly or scientific contribution of individual authors to their professional fields. Papers were less formal than reports and did not require rigorous peer review.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.