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

The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic

The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic

In order to make good decisions, we use our knowledge and our reasoning. Often, this knowledge and reasoning is sound and solid. However, sometimes, we are swayed by biases or by others manipulating a situation. For example, let’s say you and three friends wanted to rent a house and had a combined target budget of $1,600. The realtor shows you only very run-down houses for $1,600 and then shows you a very nice house for $2,000. Might you ask each person to pay more in rent to get the...

Testing a Claim about Standard Deviation

Testing a Claim about Standard Deviation

A complete procedure to test a claim about population standard deviation or population variance is explained here.
The hypothesis testing for the claim of population standard deviation (or variance) requires the data and samples to be random and unbiased. The population distribution also must be normal. There is no specific requirement on the sample size as the estimation is based on the chi-square distribution.
As a first step, the hypothesis (null and alternative) concerning the claim about...

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...

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:

Blind Procedures

Blind Procedures

Ideally, the people who observe and record the children’s behavior are unaware of who was assigned to the experimental or control group, in order to control for experimenter bias. Experimenter bias refers to the possibility that a researcher’s expectations might skew the results of the study. Remember, conducting an experiment requires a lot of planning, and the people involved in the research project have a vested interest in supporting their hypotheses. If the observers knew which...

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%...

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by

Same author

A Randomized Trial of Vitamin D Supplementation and COVID-19 Clinical Outcomes and Long COVID: The Vitamin D for COVID-19 Trial.

The Journal of nutrition·2026

Same author

Some drawbacks of variable-weight composite endpoints.

Clinical trials (London, England)·2025

Same author

Statistical methods for cost-effectiveness analysis of left-truncated and right-censored survival data with treatment delays.

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C, Applied statistics·2025

Same author

Vitamin D Status, Fasting Blood Glucose, and Latent Tuberculosis Infection in a High-Risk Population in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.

Nutrients·2025

Same author

The GPR139 agonist TAK-041 produces time-dependent alterations to cerebral blood flow and reward system function in patients with schizophrenia: a randomised placebo-controlled trial.

Psychopharmacology·2025

Same author

Exploring Risk Factors for ADHD Among Children at a Mongolian Public School: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

Journal of attention disorders·2025

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Sep 11, 2025

Emergency Undocking in Robotic Surgery: A Simulation Curriculum

Emergency Undocking in Robotic Surgery: A Simulation Curriculum

Published on: May 20, 2018

Evaluating bias in the anchor method for the minimal clinically important difference: a simulation approach.

Greg Hather¹, Polyna Khudyakov¹

¹Data Science, Sage Therapeutics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics

|August 19, 2025

Summary

Anchor-based methods for minimal clinically important differences (MCID) can be biased by placebo effects, measurement error, and confounders. This study explored these biases in simulations, offering strategies for mitigation.

Keywords:

COA MCID anchor anchor-based method bias simulation

More Related Videos

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

Published on: September 16, 2022

A Psychophysics Paradigm for the Collection and Analysis of Similarity Judgments

A Psychophysics Paradigm for the Collection and Analysis of Similarity Judgments

Published on: March 1, 2022

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Sep 11, 2025

Emergency Undocking in Robotic Surgery: A Simulation Curriculum

Emergency Undocking in Robotic Surgery: A Simulation Curriculum

Published on: May 20, 2018

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

Published on: September 16, 2022

A Psychophysics Paradigm for the Collection and Analysis of Similarity Judgments

A Psychophysics Paradigm for the Collection and Analysis of Similarity Judgments

Published on: March 1, 2022

Area of Science:

Clinical Epidemiology
Biostatistics
Health Outcomes Research

Background:

Anchor-based methods are widely used in clinical research to establish minimal clinically important differences (MCID) for patient-reported outcomes.
The theoretical underpinnings and reliability of these methods require further investigation.

Purpose of the Study:

To evaluate the performance of anchor-based methods for estimating MCID under various simulated conditions.
To identify factors that may introduce bias in MCID estimation.

Main Methods:

A simulation study was designed to assess anchor-based MCID estimation.
Simulations varied parameters including outcome variance, placebo effects, anchor measurement error, and confounding.

Main Results:

Significant placebo effects, anchor measurement error, and confounding variables were found to introduce substantial bias in estimated MCID.
The extent of bias was dependent on the magnitude of these factors.

Conclusions:

Anchor-based methods for MCID estimation are susceptible to bias from common factors in clinical studies.
Strategies for identifying and mitigating these biases are crucial for accurate interpretation of clinical outcome assessments.