Avoid Bias

Part of the Health Informatics book series (HI)


In previous chapters, nuisance variables and the biases they may bring about were discussed. It is vital to the study that such bias is avoided. This chapter provides an overview of several countermeasures that can be taken. This section discusses errors that can be avoided after which the study designs are greatly improved, often without increasing the cost or time it takes to complete the studies.

Subject-related bias, where the subjects’ behavior is different from what could be expected in normal circumstances, can be countered in many ways, ranging from increasing the neutrality of the location to conducting a single-blind study where subjects do not know to which experimental condition they are assigned. Experimenter-related bias, where the experimenter unintentionally influences the study results or the subjects, can be countered with measures ranging from standardized instructions and behaviors to using a double-blind approach where both subjects and experimenter do not know to which experimental condition the subject is assigned.


Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Carryover Effect Sleep Apnea Patient Nuisance Variable Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Leroy G, Leo GD, Fryer J (2007) An online community for teachers to support, observe, collect and evaluate assisted communication with children with autistic spectrum disorders who use smartphones as communication devices. Paper presented at the Workshop on intelligent ­systems for assisted cognition, Rochester, New York, 12–13 October 2007Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pouwer F, Snoek FJ, van der Ploeg HM, Heine RJ, Brand AN (1998) A comparison of the standard and the computerized versions of the well-being questionnaire (WBQ) and the diabetes treatment satisfaction questionnaire (DTSQ). Qual Life Res 7:33–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leroy G, Lally AM, Chen H (2003) The use of dynamic contexts to improve casual internet searching. ACM T Inform Syst 21(3):229–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leroy G, Helmreich S, Cowie J (2010) The influence of text characteristics on perceived and actual difficulty of health information. Int J Med Inform 79(6):438–449PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leroy G, Helmreich S, Cowie JR (2010) The effects of linguistic features and evaluation ­perspective on perceived difficulty of medical text. In: Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS), Kauai, 5–8 January 2010Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Smith CE, Dauz ER, Clements F, Puno FN, Cook D, Doolittle G, Leeds W (2006) Telehealth services to improve nonadherence: a placebo-controlled study. Telemed J E Health 12(3):289–296PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information Systems and TechnologyClaremont Graduate UniversityClaremontUSA

Personalised recommendations