ME patient experiences: Sampling bias limits the external validity of findings.

IF 2.5 3区心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL

Journal of Health Psychology Pub Date : 2025-01-21 DOI:10.1177/13591053241310320

Joel Selvakumar, Vegard Bruun Bratholm Wyller

引用次数: 0

Abstract

In a recent paper in Journal of Health Psychology, Kielland et al. present a study with the first objective of documenting how helpful or unhelpful persons with ME perceive common services and interventions. The authors recruited participants by respondent driven sampling, a method that aims to produce estimates that correct for sampling bias. However, we argue that the main assumptions of the method are not met, and that the results of the study thus cannot be generalised to the intended target population.

查看原文本刊更多论文

ME患者经验：抽样偏倚限制了研究结果的外部有效性。

在《健康心理学杂志》最近的一篇论文中，Kielland等人提出了一项研究，其首要目标是记录有帮助或没有帮助的ME患者如何看待常见的服务和干预措施。作者通过受访者驱动的抽样方法招募参与者，这种方法旨在产生纠正抽样偏差的估计。然而，我们认为该方法的主要假设不满足，因此研究结果不能推广到预期的目标人群。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Health Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-

CiteScore

7.50

自引率

3.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： ournal of Health Psychology is an international peer-reviewed journal that aims to support and help shape research in health psychology from around the world. It provides a platform for traditional empirical analyses as well as more qualitative and/or critically oriented approaches. It also addresses the social contexts in which psychological and health processes are embedded. Studies published in this journal are required to obtain ethical approval from an Institutional Review Board. Such approval must include informed, signed consent by all research participants. Any manuscript not containing an explicit statement concerning ethical approval and informed consent will not be considered.