Jump to content

Common source bias

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Epifanove (talk | contribs) at 23:40, 7 February 2023 (created page, added sources, added remedies. need to expand list of ex-ante remedies but references are limited for this task.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Common source bias is a type of sampling bias, occurring when a single source is used to collect information or data. This bias can occur in various forms of research, such as surveys, experiments, and observational studies. Common source bias is a significant concern for any study as it can lead to unreliable results.[1]

Common source bias can be categorized into two types: common method bias and common source bias. Common method bias occurs when the same method or instrument is used to collect data from multiple sources. This can lead to an over-representation of certain factors and a skewing of the results. Common source bias, on the other hand, occurs when the information or data collected is influenced by a single source, such as a single individual, group, or organization.

One of the major causes of common source bias is the influence of the source on the data collected. For example, if a survey is conducted by a single individual, their own beliefs, biases, and perspectives can influence the responses of the participants.

Common source bias is also present in participant selection. If participants are selected based on their association with the source, then their responses may be biased towards the source’s perspective. If participants are selected based on their willingness to participate, then their responses may not be representative of the population as a whole.

Remedies

Ex ante remedies

A recent ex ante remedy for common source bias is the supplementation of survey data with administrative and/or archival data.

Recent studies present the view that of the proposed statistical remedies for the bias, none appear to reliably counter the issue.[2]

  1. ^ academic.oup.com. doi:10.1093/jopart/muu020 https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/jopart/muu020. Retrieved 2023-02-07. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ academic.oup.com https://academic.oup.com/crawlprevention/governor?content=%2fjpart%2farticle%2f25%2f1%2f285%2f888947%3flogin%3dfalse. Retrieved 2023-02-07. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)