Editing Observer bias (section)

== Preventative steps ==

Bias is unfortunately an unavoidable problem in epidemiological and clinical research. However, there are a number of potential strategies and solutions for the reduction of observer bias, specifically in the areas of scientific studies and research across the medical field.<ref name=":1" /> The effects that bias has can be reduced through the use of strong operational definitions, along with masking, triangulation, and standardisation of procedures, and the continual monitoring of the objectivity of those conducting the experiments and observations. In market research surveys, researchers have described a framework called bias testing to mitigate researcher bias by empirically testing the survey questions with real-life respondents, and to not lead the respondents, neutral probing and redirecting techniques are used.<ref name=":2">{{Cite book |last=Geisen |first=Emily |url=https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CRGN8RNT |title=Bias testing in market research: A framework to enable inclusive research design |last2=Sha |first2=Mandy |last3=Roper |first3=Farren |year=2024 |isbn=979-8862902785 |publication-date=January 3, 2024 |pages=}}</ref>

Blinded protocols and double-blinded research can act as a corrective lens in terms of reducing observer bias, and thus, to increase the reliability and accuracy of the data collected.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Wilgenburg |first1=Ellen van |last2=Elgar |first2=Mark A. |date=2013-01-23 |title=Confirmation Bias in Studies of Nestmate Recognition: A Cautionary Note for Research into the Behaviour of Animals |journal=PLOS ONE |language=en |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=e53548 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0053548 |issn=1932-6203 |pmc=3553103 |pmid=23372659|bibcode=2013PLoSO...853548V |doi-access=free }}</ref> Blind trials are often required in order for the attainment of regulatory approval for medical devices and drugs, but are not common practice in empirical studies despite the research supporting its necessity.<ref name="Tuyttens 273–280"/> Double-blinding is done by ensuring both the tester and research participants lack of information that could have a potential influence on their behaviour, while single-blind describes those experiments where information is withheld from the participants that may otherwise skew the results or introduce bias, but the experimenter is entirely aware of and in possession of those facts.

An example of how observer bias can impact on research, and how blinded protocols can impact, can be seen in the trial for an anti-psychotic drug. Researchers that know which of the subjects received the placebo and those that received the trial drugs may later report that the group that received the trial drugs had a calmer disposition, due to the expectations of that outcome. Similarly, if the participants in the trial were not blinded, then they may report how they are feeling differently based on whether they were provided with the placebo or the trial drug.

A further example could be seen at schools. Boys of school-age generally outperform their female peers in science, however there is evidence that this is potentially as a result of how they are taught and treated by their teachers, who have the expectation that the boys have higher performances, and thus subtly encourage them.<ref name="West 16–17">{{Cite journal |last=West |first=Charles |date=February 1980 |title=Book Reviews: Achenbach, Thomas M. ''Research in Developmental Psychology: Concepts, Strategies, Methods''. New York: The Free Press, 1978. 350 + xiii pp. $14.95. |journal=Educational Researcher |volume=9 |issue=2 |pages=16–17 |doi=10.3102/0013189x009002016 |s2cid=145015499 |issn=0013-189X}}</ref> As such, the observers, being the teachers who conduct tests and evaluate the results, have a bias and preconceived belief that boys will outperform girls, which impacts on their behaviour.

To complement blind or masked protocols and research, further strategies including standardised training for observers and researchers about how to record findings can be useful in the mitigation of observer bias.<ref name=":0" /> Clear definition of methodology, tools and the time frames allocated for the collection of findings can assist in adequately training and preparing observers in a standardised manner. Further, identifying any potential conflicts of interest within observers before commencement of the research is essential in ensuring bias is minimised.

Finally, triangulation within research is a method that can be used to increase the findings validity and credibility.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Noble |first1=Helen |last2=Heale |first2=Roberta |date=2019-07-01 |title=Triangulation in research, with examples |url=https://ebn.bmj.com/content/22/3/67 |journal=Evidence-Based Nursing |language=en |volume=22 |issue=3 |pages=67–68 |doi=10.1136/ebnurs-2019-103145 |issn=1367-6539 |pmid=31201209|s2cid=189862202 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Triangulation in research refers to the use of a variety of methods or data sources as a means of developing a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of the subject at hand.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Carter |first1=Nancy |last2=Bryant-Lukosius |first2=Denise |last3=DiCenso |first3=Alba |last4=Blythe |first4=Jennifer |last5=Neville |first5=Alan J. |date=2014-08-26 |title=The Use of Triangulation in Qualitative Research |url=https://onf.ons.org/onf/41/5/use-triangulation-qualitative-research |journal=Oncology Nursing Forum |language=en |volume=41 |issue=5 |pages=545–547 |doi=10.1188/14.ONF.545-547|pmid=25158659 |doi-access=free |url-access=subscription }}</ref> Triangulation will considerably increase the confidence in a study tremendously. There are a few ways triangulation can occur, including the use of multiple observers, which is a form of reliability in itself called interobserver reliability, measured by the percentage of times that the observers agree.