Selection bias
Selection bias is the
Types of bias
Sampling bias
A distinction of sampling bias (albeit not a universally accepted one) is that it undermines the external validity of a test (the ability of its results to be generalized to the rest of the population), while selection bias mainly addresses internal validity for differences or similarities found in the sample at hand. In this sense, errors occurring in the process of gathering the sample or cohort cause sampling bias, while errors in any process thereafter cause selection bias.
Examples of sampling bias include
Time interval
- Early termination of a trial at a time when its results support the desired conclusion.
- A trial may be terminated early at an extreme value (often for .
Exposure
- Susceptibility bias
- Clinical susceptibility bias, when one disease predisposes for a second disease, and the treatment for the first disease erroneously appears to predispose to the second disease. For example, postmenopausal syndrome gives a higher likelihood of also developing endometrial cancer, so estrogens given for the postmenopausal syndrome may receive a higher than actual blame for causing endometrial cancer.[9]
- Protopathic bias, when a treatment for the first symptoms of a disease or other outcome appear to cause the outcome. It is a potential bias when there is a lag time from the first symptoms and start of treatment before actual diagnosis.[9] It can be mitigated by lagging, that is, exclusion of exposures that occurred in a certain time period before diagnosis.[10]
- Indication bias, a potential mixup between cause and effect when exposure is dependent on indication, e.g. a treatment is given to people in high risk of acquiring a disease, potentially causing a preponderance of treated people among those acquiring the disease. This may cause an erroneous appearance of the treatment being a cause of the disease.[11]
- Clinical susceptibility bias, when one disease predisposes for a second disease, and the treatment for the first disease erroneously appears to predispose to the second disease. For example,
Data
- Partitioning (dividing) data with knowledge of the contents of the partitions, and then analyzing them with tests designed for blindly chosen partitions.
- Post hoc alteration of data inclusion based on arbitrary or subjective reasons, including:
- Cherry picking, which actually is not selection bias, but confirmation bias, when specific subsets of data are chosen to support a conclusion (e.g. citing examples of plane crashes as evidence of airline flight being unsafe, while ignoring the far more common example of flights that complete safely. See: availability heuristic)
- Rejection of bad data on (1) arbitrary grounds, instead of according to previously stated or generally agreed criteria or (2) discarding "outliers" on statistical grounds that fail to take into account important information that could be derived from "wild" observations.[12]
Studies
- Selection of which studies to include in a meta-analysis (see also combinatorial meta-analysis).
- Performing repeated experiments and reporting only the most favorable results, perhaps relabelling lab records of other experiments as "calibration tests", "instrumentation errors" or "preliminary surveys".
- Presenting the most significant result of a data dredge as if it were a single experiment (which is logically the same as the previous item, but is seen as much less dishonest).
Attrition
Attrition bias is a kind of selection bias caused by attrition (loss of participants),
Lost to follow-up, is another form of Attrition bias, mainly occurring in medicinal studies over a lengthy time period. Non-Response or Retention bias can be influenced by a number of both tangible and intangible factors, such as; wealth, education, altruism, initial understanding of the study and its requirements.[14] Researchers may also be incapable of conducting follow-up contact resulting from inadequate identifying information and contact details collected during the initial recruitment and research phase.[15]
Observer selection
Philosopher
An example is the past
Volunteer bias
Self-selection bias or a volunteer bias in studies offer further threats to the validity of a study as these participants may have intrinsically different characteristics from the target population of the study.[19] Studies have shown that volunteers tend to come from a higher social standing than from a lower socio-economic background.[20] Furthermore, another study shows that women are more probable to volunteer for studies than males. Volunteer bias is evident throughout the study life-cycle, from recruitment to follow-ups. More generally speaking volunteer response can be put down to individual altruism, a desire for approval, personal relation to the study topic and other reasons.[20][14] As with most instances mitigation in the case of volunteer bias is an increased sample size. [citation needed]
Mitigation
In the general case, selection biases cannot be overcome with statistical analysis of existing data alone, though
When data are selected for fitting or forecast purposes, a coalitional game can be set up so that a fitting or forecast accuracy function can be defined on all subsets of the data variables.
Related issues
Selection bias is closely related to:
- publication bias or reporting bias, the distortion produced in community perception or meta-analyses by not publishing uninteresting (usually negative) results, or results which go against the experimenter's prejudices, a sponsor's interests, or community expectations.
- confirmation bias, the general tendency of humans to give more attention to whatever confirms our pre-existing perspective; or specifically in experimental science, the distortion produced by experiments that are designed to seek confirmatory evidence instead of trying to disprove the hypothesis.
- exclusion bias, results from applying different criteria to cases and controls in regards to participation eligibility for a study/different variables serving as basis for exclusion.
See also
- Berkson's paradox – Tendency to misinterpret statistical experiments involving conditional probabilities
- Black swan theory – Theory of response to surprise events
- Cherry picking – Fallacy of incomplete evidence
- Frequency illusion – Cognitive bias
- Funding bias – Tendency of a scientific study to support the interests of its funder
- List of cognitive biases – Systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment
- Participation bias – Type of bias
- Publication bias – Higher probability of publishing results showing a significant finding
- Reporting bias – Bias in the reporting of information
- Sampling bias – Bias in the sampling of a population
- Sampling probability – Theory relating to sampling from finite populations
- Selective exposure theory – Theory within the practice of psychology
- Self-fulfilling prophecy – Prediction that causes itself to become true
- Survivorship bias – Logical error, form of selection bias
References
- ^ Dictionary of Cancer Terms → selection bias. Retrieved on September 23, 2009.
- ^ Medical Dictionary - 'Sampling Bias' Retrieved on September 23, 2009
- ^ TheFreeDictionary → biased sample. Retrieved on 2009-09-23. Site in turn cites: Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition.
- ^ Dictionary of Cancer Terms → Selection Bias. Retrieved on September 23, 2009.
- PMID 9504213.
- S2CID 842488.
- .
- ISBN 978-0-7817-8257-9.
- ^ PMID 698947.
- S2CID 25648490.
- ISBN 978-1-930513-58-7.
- .
- ^ PMID 15649954.
- ^ PMID 23874465.
- S2CID 27683727.
- ISBN 978-0-415-93858-7.
- S2CID 6485564.
- S2CID 4390013.
- PMID 20407272.
- ^ a b "Volunteer bias". Catalog of Bias. 2017-11-17. Retrieved 2020-10-29.
- JSTOR 1912352.