ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2025
A solution to the pervasive problem of response bias in self-reports.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of water quality and microbial contamination in institutional water resources: a necessity to understand health risks.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Development and Validation of the Primary Care Needs Assessment (PCNA) Questionnaire: A Participatory Multidimensional Approach to Identifying Health Needs.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Local Community Perspectives on the Role of Institutional Stakeholders in Advancing Forest Landscape Restoration in Ghana.Scientifica · 2026Article
- HMDF-Net: a transfer learning-based heterogeneous multimodal dynamic fusion network for depression detection among inmates in correctional facilities.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Distinct neural temporal architectures encode rapid social expressions and sustained internal mood states.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Self-reports are used ubiquitously to probe people's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors and inform medical decisions, enterprise operations, and government policy and legislation. Despite their pervasive use, self-report measures such as Likert scales have a profound problem: Standard analytic approaches do not control for the confounding effects of idiosyncratic response biases. Here, we present a model-based solution to this problem. Our model disentangles response bias from latent constructs of interest to obtain less biased scores of the latent states of respondents. Inspired by Thurstonian approaches in the psychophysics literature, the model requires nothing further than standard Likert scale design assumptions. The model uses a data-driven approach to control for response biases, without the need to prespecify bias types or response strategies. We demonstrate the model's ability to uncover more precise estimates of latent state associations, outperforming bias-affected standard scoring techniques, and garner insights into previously undetected codependencies between certain latent states and particular forms of response bias. The model is thus a tool which outperforms standard scoring methods and generates insights into, and controls for, the potentially confounding effects of response bias on self-report Likert scale data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.