de Quiros, A C B; Lopez, R; Aranda-Mena, G and Edwards, P (2008) Human reliability as a source of error in research. In: Dainty, A (ed.) Proceedings of 24th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2008, Cardiff, UK.
Abstract
Human error is embedded in every human endeavour. Given that research is conducted by humans, it is therefore prone to human error. This paper focuses on the errors that derive from transcribing data across formats. These “input” errors arise largely from the monotony of the data entry process and may mean that an otherwise thoroughly designed research can potentially produce misleading conclusions. The paper reports the results of a quality checking process developed to monitor the transcription of data from paper-based questionnaires, collected as part of current PhD research, into the computer. Following the same entry method, the data from all questionnaires received were input twice by the PhD candidate, then twice again by another participant. The 28,140 entries were matched and any differences analysed in order to quantify the occurrence of input errors committed and identify the nature of these errors. The results suggest that where the input errors were committed had more impact on the findings revealed from each question than the total number of input errors committed.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | design; error; human reliability; research |
| Index terms: | questionnaire |
| Subjects: | data collection methods |
| Topics: | Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 1 A |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here