Thorsten Meyer, Ines Schäfer, Christine Matthis, Thomas Kohlmann, Oskar Mittag
{"title":"由于“核对表误解效应”导致的数据缺失。","authors":"Thorsten Meyer, Ines Schäfer, Christine Matthis, Thomas Kohlmann, Oskar Mittag","doi":"10.1007/s00038-005-0005-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To analyze the extent and relevance of a postulated \"checklist misconception-effect\" (a specific response pattern characterized by symptom-free persons not checking the \"not at all\"-category).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our data is derived from a survey of blue collar workers (n = 228) who previously had filed in applications for medical rehabilitation benefits. We defined the \"checklist misconception-effect\" by the following response pattern: (1) at least one missing value and (2) at least one valid item response and (3) no 'not at all' responses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>75% of the responders had complete data, 16.2% a postulated 'checklist misconception-effect'. Substantial co-variations with socio-demographic characteristics or health status indicators could not be found. Additional imputation of missing values under the assumption of a \"checklist misconception-effect\" led to a reduction of missing data in the somatisation-subscale score from 12.3% to 0.4% compared to a simple manual-based calculation. Correlation with various external criteria (general health perception, level of functioning, depression) remained unchanged.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Ignoring the \"checklist misconception-effect\" would overestimate symptom load. However, the validity of this effect has still to be proven in methodological studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":21877,"journal":{"name":"Sozial- und Praventivmedizin","volume":"51 1","pages":"34-42"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00038-005-0005-9","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Missing data due to a 'checklist misconception-effect'.\",\"authors\":\"Thorsten Meyer, Ines Schäfer, Christine Matthis, Thomas Kohlmann, Oskar Mittag\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00038-005-0005-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To analyze the extent and relevance of a postulated \\\"checklist misconception-effect\\\" (a specific response pattern characterized by symptom-free persons not checking the \\\"not at all\\\"-category).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our data is derived from a survey of blue collar workers (n = 228) who previously had filed in applications for medical rehabilitation benefits. We defined the \\\"checklist misconception-effect\\\" by the following response pattern: (1) at least one missing value and (2) at least one valid item response and (3) no 'not at all' responses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>75% of the responders had complete data, 16.2% a postulated 'checklist misconception-effect'. Substantial co-variations with socio-demographic characteristics or health status indicators could not be found. Additional imputation of missing values under the assumption of a \\\"checklist misconception-effect\\\" led to a reduction of missing data in the somatisation-subscale score from 12.3% to 0.4% compared to a simple manual-based calculation. Correlation with various external criteria (general health perception, level of functioning, depression) remained unchanged.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Ignoring the \\\"checklist misconception-effect\\\" would overestimate symptom load. However, the validity of this effect has still to be proven in methodological studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21877,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sozial- und Praventivmedizin\",\"volume\":\"51 1\",\"pages\":\"34-42\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00038-005-0005-9\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sozial- und Praventivmedizin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-005-0005-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sozial- und Praventivmedizin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-005-0005-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Missing data due to a 'checklist misconception-effect'.
Objectives: To analyze the extent and relevance of a postulated "checklist misconception-effect" (a specific response pattern characterized by symptom-free persons not checking the "not at all"-category).
Methods: Our data is derived from a survey of blue collar workers (n = 228) who previously had filed in applications for medical rehabilitation benefits. We defined the "checklist misconception-effect" by the following response pattern: (1) at least one missing value and (2) at least one valid item response and (3) no 'not at all' responses.
Results: 75% of the responders had complete data, 16.2% a postulated 'checklist misconception-effect'. Substantial co-variations with socio-demographic characteristics or health status indicators could not be found. Additional imputation of missing values under the assumption of a "checklist misconception-effect" led to a reduction of missing data in the somatisation-subscale score from 12.3% to 0.4% compared to a simple manual-based calculation. Correlation with various external criteria (general health perception, level of functioning, depression) remained unchanged.
Conclusions: Ignoring the "checklist misconception-effect" would overestimate symptom load. However, the validity of this effect has still to be proven in methodological studies.