Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Testing a Claim about Population Proportion

Testing a Claim about Population Proportion

A complete procedure for testing a claim about a population proportion is provided here.
There are two methods of testing a claim about a population proportion: (1) Using the sample proportion from the data where a binomial distribution is approximated to the normal distribution and (2) Using the binomial probabilities calculated from the data.
The first method uses normal distribution as an approximation to the binomial distribution. The requirements are as follows: sample size is large...

Bias

Bias

Bias refers to any tendency that prevents a question from being considered unprejudiced. In research, bias occurs when one outcome or answer is selected or encouraged over others in sampling or testing. Bias can occur during any research phase, including study design, data collection, analysis, and publication.
In statistics, a sampling bias is created when a sample is collected from a population, and some members of the population are not as likely to be chosen as others (remember, each member...

Contaminants and Errors

Contaminants and Errors

Effective sample preparation is crucial for accurate and reliable laboratory analysis. During this process, two significant sources of error can arise: concentration bias from improper sample splitting and contamination caused by methods used to reduce particle size, such as grinding or homogenization. Identifying and minimizing these potential errors is crucial to ensuring the validity of the analysis.
Another key consideration is determining the appropriate number of samples required to...

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis testing is a fundamental statistical tool that begins with the assumption that the null hypothesis H0 is true. During this process, two types of errors can occur: Type I and Type II. A Type I error refers to the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis, while a Type II error involves the failure to reject a false null hypothesis.
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5% chance...

Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding

Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding

Confounding is a critical issue in epidemiological studies, often leading to misleading conclusions about associations between exposures and outcomes. It occurs when the relationship between the exposure and the outcome is mixed with the effects of other factors that influence the outcome. Given that, addressing confounding is of high importance for drawing accurate inferences in research.
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...

Bias in Epidemiological Studies

Bias in Epidemiological Studies

Biases can arise at various stages of research, from study design and data collection to analysis and interpretation. Recognizing and addressing these biases is essential to ensure the validity and reliability of epidemiological findings.Broadly speaking, biases in epidemiology fall into three main categories: selection bias, information bias, and confounding. A more detailed description of possible biases is:

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Perceptions by treatment staff of critical tasks in the treatment of the compulsive gambler.

Journal of gambling studies·2013

Same author

Method, method: who's got the method? What can we know about the number of compulsive gamblers?

Journal of gambling studies·1997

Same author

Addictions paradigms III: From theory-research to practice and back.

Advances in alcohol & substance abuse·1983

Same author

Addiction paradigms II. Theory, research and practice.

Journal of psychedelic drugs·1979

Same author

Psychological rehabilitation, skills-building, and self-efficacy.

The American psychologist·1978

Same author

Role of event runs in probability learning.

Psychological review·1967

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jul 11, 2026

A Machine Learning Approach to Design an Efficient Selective Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment

A Machine Learning Approach to Design an Efficient Selective Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment

Published on: January 11, 2020

The correction for bias in prevalence estimation with screening tests.

¹Massachusetts Council on Compulsive Gambling, Inc., Boston, 02110, USA.

Journal of Gambling Studies

|January 1, 1997

Summary

Concerns about the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) leading to overestimation of gambling prevalence are unfounded. False positives alone do not guarantee inflated prevalence rates in population studies.

Area of Science:

Psychometrics
Epidemiology
Public Health

Background:

Screening tests like the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) are used to estimate gambling prevalence.
A common concern is that high false positive rates in these tests lead to overestimation of true prevalence in population studies.

Purpose of the Study:

To evaluate the concern that false positives from the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) lead to overestimation of gambling prevalence.
To determine if sample prevalence estimators are biased and in which direction.

Main Methods:

Statistical analysis of screening test properties.
Examination of the relationship between false positive rates and prevalence estimation bias.

Main Results:

More Related Videos

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (Propensity Score) using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (Propensity Score) using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index

Published on: January 8, 2020

Signal Acquisition, Score Interpretation, and Economics of a Non-Invasive Point-of-Care Test for Coronary Artery Disease

Signal Acquisition, Score Interpretation, and Economics of a Non-Invasive Point-of-Care Test for Coronary Artery Disease

Published on: August 9, 2024

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 11, 2026

A Machine Learning Approach to Design an Efficient Selective Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment

A Machine Learning Approach to Design an Efficient Selective Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment

Published on: January 11, 2020

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (Propensity Score) using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (Propensity Score) using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index

Published on: January 8, 2020

Signal Acquisition, Score Interpretation, and Economics of a Non-Invasive Point-of-Care Test for Coronary Artery Disease

Signal Acquisition, Score Interpretation, and Economics of a Non-Invasive Point-of-Care Test for Coronary Artery Disease

Published on: August 9, 2024

The concern that false positives from the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) inherently overestimate prevalence is shown to be unfounded.
False positives are a necessary but not sufficient condition for prevalence overestimation.
The critical research question is whether the sample prevalence estimator is biased.

Conclusions:

The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) does not necessarily lead to overestimation of gambling prevalence.
Addressing bias in prevalence estimation requires understanding test error rates.