The most common interviewer bias
is to control or dilute the information-gathering process.
Data from a computer assisted diet history interview and face-to-face interview were compared, showing greater interviewer bias
without the computer, but the two methods were of similar quality.
The study also had an adequate sample size and allowed for participant anonymity, which decreases the potential for respondent and/or interviewer bias
(Polit & Hungler, 1999).
Can be skewed by possible interviewer bias
through expressions, comments, etc.
Other possible sources of bias including interviewer bias
and detection bias (due to close surveillance by a urologist) were adequately addressed in the study.
One limitation of the study was the potential for recall and interviewer bias
with case-control studies.
Several studies indicate that interviewer bias
leads to inaccurate statements from the party being interviewed (Belli, 1989; Ceci & Bruck, 1993; Saywitz & Snyder, 1993).
First, the findings are subject to interviewer bias
because some of the interviewers knew about the strengths and weaknesses of the surveillance systems; however, this was offset by the presence of independent interviewers from CDC and WHO.
To minimize interviewer bias
and build interviewers' skills in conducting semistructured interviews with this population, we implemented a rigorous application process, required participation in two weeks of training, and provided ongoing supervision throughout the data collection process.
Most of the questions raised in cross-examination pertained to the methodology of the surveys, and specifically to the issue of interviewer bias
The contribution by Peter Stephenson and his colleagues addresses the phenomenon of interviewer bias
Randomized clinical trials that are double blind are not subject to interviewer bias
because of the double blind nature of the study.