为什么我们这么做:观察性研究与问卷调查的结果不同

E. Oberzaucher
{"title":"为什么我们这么做:观察性研究与问卷调查的结果不同","authors":"E. Oberzaucher","doi":"10.22330/heb/324/021-026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When analysing humans, issues of bias are a major concern affecting the validity of research. Objectivity is never guaranteed since we are observing conspecifics. Questionnaire studies aggravate the problem by adding additional sources of data filtering and bias. This article provides a short outline of the steps that need to be taken in order to ensure that data collected in observational studies are valid. It is aimed to raise awareness for the requirements of observational studies in order to meet the standard definition of ethology, and describes the limits and potential of observation in comparison to questionnaire studies.","PeriodicalId":91082,"journal":{"name":"Human ethology bulletin","volume":"32 1","pages":"21-26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why We Do It The Hard Way: Observational Studies Tell A Different Story From Questionnaires\",\"authors\":\"E. Oberzaucher\",\"doi\":\"10.22330/heb/324/021-026\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"When analysing humans, issues of bias are a major concern affecting the validity of research. Objectivity is never guaranteed since we are observing conspecifics. Questionnaire studies aggravate the problem by adding additional sources of data filtering and bias. This article provides a short outline of the steps that need to be taken in order to ensure that data collected in observational studies are valid. It is aimed to raise awareness for the requirements of observational studies in order to meet the standard definition of ethology, and describes the limits and potential of observation in comparison to questionnaire studies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":91082,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human ethology bulletin\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"21-26\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-12-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human ethology bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22330/heb/324/021-026\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human ethology bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22330/heb/324/021-026","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

在分析人类时,偏见问题是影响研究有效性的主要问题。因为我们观察的是同质性,所以客观性是无法保证的。问卷调查研究通过增加额外的数据过滤和偏见来源而加剧了这个问题。本文简要概述了需要采取的步骤,以确保观察性研究中收集的数据是有效的。它旨在提高人们对观察性研究要求的认识,以满足动物行为学的标准定义,并描述了与问卷研究相比观察的局限性和潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Why We Do It The Hard Way: Observational Studies Tell A Different Story From Questionnaires
When analysing humans, issues of bias are a major concern affecting the validity of research. Objectivity is never guaranteed since we are observing conspecifics. Questionnaire studies aggravate the problem by adding additional sources of data filtering and bias. This article provides a short outline of the steps that need to be taken in order to ensure that data collected in observational studies are valid. It is aimed to raise awareness for the requirements of observational studies in order to meet the standard definition of ethology, and describes the limits and potential of observation in comparison to questionnaire studies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信