Biases are human tendencies that lead us to follow a particular quasilogical path, or form a certain perspective based on predetermined

mental notions and beliefs. When investors act on a bias, they do not explore the full issue and can be ignorant to evidence that contradicts their initial opinions. Avoiding cognitive biases allows investors to reach impartial decision based solely on available data A statistic is biased if it is calculated in such a way that it is systematically different from the population parameter of interest. The following lists some types of, or aspects of, bias which should not be considered mutually exclusive:

Selection bias, where individuals or groups are more likely to take part in a research project than others, resulting in biased samples. This can also be termed Berksonian bias.[1] Spectrum bias arises from evaluating diagnostic tests on biased patient samples, leading to an overestimate of the sensitivity and specificity of the test. The bias of an estimator is the difference between an estimator's expectation and the true value of the parameter being estimated. Omitted-variable bias is the bias that appears in estimates of parameters in a regression analysis when the assumed specification is incorrect, in that it omits an independent variable that should be in the model. In statistical hypothesis testing, a test is said to be unbiased when the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis is less than or equal to the significance level when the null hypothesis is true, and the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis is greater than or equal to the significance level when the alternative hypothesis is true, Detection bias is where a phenomenon is more likely to be observed and/or reported for a particular set of study subjects. For instance, the syndemic involving obesity and diabetesmay mean doctors are more likely to look for diabetes in obese patients than in less overweight patients, leading to an inflation in diabetes among obese patients because of skewed detection efforts. Funding bias may lead to selection of outcomes, test samples, or test procedures that favor a study's financial sponsor.

Reporting bias involves a skew in the availability of data, such that observations of a certain kind may be more likely to be reported and consequently used in research. Data-snooping bias comes from the misuse of data mining techniques. In statistics, sampling bias is when a sample is collected in such a way that some members of the intended population are less likely to be included than others. It results in a biased sample, a non-random sample[1] of a population (or non-human factors) in which all individuals, or instances, were not equally likely to have been selected.[2] If this is not accounted for, results can be erroneously attributed to the phenomenon under study rather than to the method of sampling.

Medical sources sometimes refer to sampling bias as ascertainment bias.[3][4] Ascertainment bias has basically the same definition,[5][6] but is still sometimes classified as a separate type of bias.[5]

Distinction from selection bias Sampling bias is mostly classified as a subtype of selection bias,[7] sometimes specifically termed sample selection bias,[8][9] but some classify it as a separate type of bias.[10] A distinction, albeit not universally accepted, of sampling bias is that it undermines the external validity of a test (the ability of its results to be generalized to the rest of the population), while selection bias mainly addresses internal validity for differences or similarities found in the sample at hand. In this sense, errors occurring in the process of gathering the sample or cohort cause sampling bias, while errors in any process thereafter cause selection bias. However, selection bias and sampling bias are often used synonymously.[11] [edit]Types of sampling bias

Selection from a specific area. For example, a survey of high school students to measure teenage use of illegal drugs will be a biased sample because it does not include home-schooled students

or dropouts. A sample is also biased if certain members are underrepresented or overrepresented relative to others in the population. For example, a "man on the street" interview which selects people who walk by a certain location is going to have an overrepresentation of healthy individuals who are more likely to be out of the home than individuals with a chronic illness. This may be an extreme form of biased sampling, because certain members of the population are totally excluded from the sample (that is, they have zero probability of being selected). Self-selection bias, which is possible whenever the group of people being studied has any form of control over whether to participate. Participants' decision to participate may be correlated with traits that affect the study, making the participants a non-representative sample. For example, people who have strong opinions or substantial knowledge may be more willing to spend time answering a survey than those who do not. Another example is online and phone-in polls, which are biased samples because the respondents are self-selected. Those individuals who are highly motivated to respond, typically individuals who have strong opinions, are overrepresented, and individuals that are indifferent or apathetic are less likely to respond. This often leads to a polarization of responses with extreme perspectives being given a disproportionate weight in the summary. As a result, these types of polls are regarded as unscientific. Pre-screening of trial participants, or advertising for volunteers within particular groups. For example a study to "prove" that smoking does not affect fitness might recruit at the local fitness center, but advertise for smokers during the advanced aerobics class, and for non-smokers during the weight loss sessions. Exclusion bias results from exclusion of particular groups from the sample, e.g. exclusion of subjects who have recently migrated into the study area (this may occur when newcomers are not available in a register used to identify the source population). Excluding subjects who move out of the study area during follow-up is rather equivalent of dropout or nonresponse, a selection bias in that it rather affects the internal validity of the study.

Healthy user bias, when the study population is likely healthier than the general population, e.g. workers (i.e. someone in ill-health is unlikely to have a job as manual laborer). Overmatching, matching for an apparent confounder that actually is a result of the exposure. The control group becomes more similar to the cases in regard to exposure than the general population. [edit]Symptom-based sampling The study of medical conditions begins with anecdotal reports. By their nature, such reports only include those referred for diagnosis and treatment. A child who can't function in school is more likely to be diagnosed with dyslexia than a child who struggles but passes. A child examined for one condition is more likely to be tested for and diagnosed with other conditions, skewing comorbidity statistics. As certain diagnoses become associated with behavior problems or mental retardation, parents try to prevent their children from being stigmatized with those diagnoses, introducing further bias. Studies carefully selected from whole populations are showing that many conditions are much more common and usually much milder than formerly believed.

[edit]Truncate selection in pedigree studies

Simple pedigree example of sampling bias Geneticists are limited in how they can obtain data from human populations. As an example, consider a human characteristic. We are interested in deciding if the characteristic is inherited as a simple Mendelian trait. Following the laws of Mendelian inheritance, if the parents in a family do not have the characteristic, but carry the allele

for it, they are carriers (e.g. a non-expressive heterozygote). In this case their children will each have a 25% chance of showing the characteristic. The problem arises because we can't tell which families have both parents as carriers (heterozygous) unless they have a child who exhibits the characteristic. The description follows the textbook by Sutton.[12] The figure shows the pedigrees of all the possible families with two children when the parents are carriers (Aa). Nontruncate selection. In a perfect world we should be able to discover all such families with a gene including those who are simply carriers. In this situation the analysis would be free from ascertainment bias and the pedigrees would be under "nontruncate selection" In practice, most studies identify, and include, families in a study based upon them having affected individuals. Truncate selection. When afflicted individuals have an equal chance of being included in a study this is called truncate selection, signifying the inadvertent exclusion (truncation) of families who are carriers for a gene. Because selection is performed on the individual level, families with two or more affected children would have a higher probability of becoming included in the study. Complete truncate selection is a special case where each family with an affected child has an equal chance of being selected for the study. The probabilities of each of the families being selected is given in the figure, with the sample frequency of affected children also given. In this simple case, the researcher will look for a frequency of 47 or 58 for the characteristic, depending on the type of truncate selection used.

[edit]The caveman effect An example of selection basis is called the "caveman effect." Much of our understanding of prehistoric peoples comes from caves, such as cave paintings made nearly 40,000 years ago. If there had been contemporary paintings on trees, animal skins or hillsides, they would have been washed away long ago. Similarly, evidence of fire pits, middens, burial sites, etc. are most likely to remain intact to the

modern era in caves. Prehistoric people are associated with caves because that is where the data still exists, not necessarily because most of them lived in caves for most of their lives. [edit]Problems caused by sampling bias A biased sample causes problems because any statistic computed from that sample has the potential to be consistently erroneous. The bias can lead to an over- or underrepresentation of the corresponding parameter in the population. Almost every sample in practice is biased because it is practically impossible to ensure a perfectly random sample. If the degree of underrepresentation is small, the sample can be treated as a reasonable approximation to a random sample. Also, if the group that is underrepresented does not differ markedly from the other groups in the quantity being measured, then a random sample can still be a reasonable approximation. The word bias in common usage has a strong negative word connotation, and implies a deliberate intent to mislead or other scientific fraud. In statistical usage, bias merely represents a mathematical property, no matter if it is deliberate or either unconscious or due to imperfections in the instruments used for observation. While some individuals might deliberately use a biased sample to produce misleading results, more often, a biased sample is just a reflection of the difficulty in obtaining a truly representative sample. Some samples use a biased statistical design which nevertheless allows the estimation of parameters. The U.S. National Center for Health Statistics for example, deliberately oversamples from minority populations in many of its nationwide surveys in order to gain sufficient precision for estimates within these groups.[13] These surveys require the use of sample weights (see below) to produce proper estimates across all racial and ethnic groups. Provided that certain conditions are met (chiefly that the sample is drawn randomly from the entire sample) these samples permit accurate estimation of population parameters. [edit] Statistical corrections for a biased sample

If entire segments of the population are excluded from a sample, then there are no adjustments that can produce estimates that are representative of the entire population. But if some groups are underrepresented and the degree of underrepresentation can be quantified, then sample weights can correct the bias. For example, a hypothetical population might include 10 million men and 10 million women. Suppose that a biased sample of 100 patients included 20 men and 80 women. A researcher could correct for this imbalance by attaching a weight of 2.5 for each male and 0.625 for each female. This would adjust any estimates to achieve the same expected value as a sample that included exactly 50 men and 50 women, unless men and women differed in their likelihood of taking part in the survey.

In statistics, bias (or bias function) of an estimator is the difference between this estimator's expected value and the true value of the parameter being estimated. An estimator or decision rule with zero bias is called unbiased. Otherwise the estimator is said to be biased. In ordinary English, the term bias is pejorative. In statistics, there are problems for which it may be good to use an estimator with a small, but nonzero, bias. In some cases, an estimator with a small bias may have lesser mean squared error or be medianunbiased (rather than mean-unbiased, the standard unbiasedness property). The property of median-unbiasedness is invariant under transformations, while the property of mean-unbiasedness may be lost under nonlinear transformations

Information bias

Definition Also referred to as observational bias and misclassification. A Dictionary of Epidemiology, sponsored by the International Epidemiological Association, defines this as the following: 1. A flaw in measuring exposure, covariate, or outcome variables that results in different quality (accuracy) of information between

comparison groups. The occurrence of information biases may not be independent of the occurrence of selection biases. 2. Bias in an estimate arising from measurement errors.[1] Information bias, essentially, refers to bias arising from measurement error.[2] [edit]Misclassification Misclassification thus refers to measurement error. There are two types of misclassification in epidemiological research: non differential misclassification and differentialmisclassification. [edit]Non differential misclassification Non differential misclassification is when all classes, groups, or categories of a variable (whether exposure, outcome, or covariate) have the same error rate or probability of being misclassified for all study subjects.[1] The traditional assumption has been that, in the case of binary or dichotomous variables, this would result in an underestimate of the hypothesized relationship between exposure and outcome. This has more recently been challenged however in that results of individual studies represent a single estimate and not the average of repeated measurements and thus can be farther (or nearer) from the null value (i.e. zero) than the true value.[3] [edit]Differential misclassification Differential misclassification occurs when the error rate or probability of being misclassified differs across groups of study subjects. [1] For example, the accuracy of blood pressure measurement may be lower for heavier than for lighter study subjects, or a study of elderly persons may find that reports from elderly persons with dementia are less reliable than those without dementia. The effect(s) of such misclassification can vary from an overestimation to an underestimation of the true value.[4] Statisticians have developed methods to adjust for this type of bias, which may assist somewhat in compensating for this problem when known and when it is quantifiable.[5] Lead time bias From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lead time is the length of time between the detection of a disease (usually based on new, experimental criteria) and its usual clinical presentation and diagnosis (based on traditional criteria). Lead time bias is the bias that occurs when two tests for a disease are compared, and one test (the new, experimental one) diagnoses the disease earlier, but there is no effect on the outcome of the diseaseit may appear that the test prolonged survival, when in fact it only resulted in earlier diagnosis when compared to traditional methods. It is an important factor when evaluating the effectiveness of a specific test.[1]

Lead time bias occurs when testing increases perceived survival time without affecting the course of the disease. [edit]Relationship between screening and survival Main article: Screening (medicine) By screening, the intention is to diagnose a disease earlier than it would be without screening. Without screening, the disease may be discovered later once symptoms appear. Even if in both cases a person will die at the same time, because the disease was diagnosed early with screening, the survival time since diagnosis is longer with screening. No additional life has been gained (and indeed, there may be added anxiety as the patient must live with knowledge of the disease for longer). For example, most people with the genetic disorder Huntington's disease are diagnosed when symptoms appear around age 50, and they die around age 65. The typical patient therefore lives about 15 years after diagnosis. With a genetic test, it is possible to diagnose this disorder at birth. If this

newborn baby dies around age 65, he or she will have "survived" 65 years after diagnosis, without having actually lived any longer than the people who were diagnosed late in life. Looking at raw statistics, screening will appear to increase survival time (this gain is called lead time). If we do not think about what survival time actually means in this context, we might attribute success to a screening test that does nothing but advance diagnosis. Lead time bias can affect interpretation of the five-year survival rate.[2 Observer-expectancy effect

The observer-expectancy effect (also called the experimenterexpectancy effect, observer effect, or experimenter effect) is a form of reactivity, in which a researcher's cognitive bias causes them to unconsciously influence the participants of an experiment. It is a significant threat to a study's internal validity, and is therefore typically controlled using a double-blind experimental design. An example of the observer-expectancy effect is demonstrated in music backmasking, in which hidden verbal messages are said to be audible when a recording is played backwards. Some people expect to hear hidden messages when reversing songs, and therefore hear the messages, but to others it sounds like nothing more than random sounds. Often when a song is played backwards, a listener will fail to notice the "hidden" lyrics until they are explicitly pointed out, after which they are obvious. Other prominent examples include facilitated communication and dowsing.

Omitted-variable bias From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In statistics, omitted-variable bias (OVB) occurs when a model is created which incorrectly leaves out one or more important causal factors. The 'bias' is created when the model compensates for the missing factor by over- or under-estimating one of the other factors.

More specifically, OVB is the bias that appears in the estimates of parameters in a regression analysis, when the assumed specification is incorrect, in that it omits an independent variable (possibly non-delineated) that should be in the model. Recall bias From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In psychology, recall bias is a type of systematic bias which occurs when the way a survey respondent answers a question is affected not just by the correct answer, but also by the respondent's memory.[1][2] This can affect the results of the survey. As a hypothetical example, suppose that a survey in 2005 asked respondents whether they believed that O.J. Simpson had killed his wife, 10 years after the criminal trial. Respondents who believed him innocent might be more likely to have forgotten about the case, and therefore to state no opinion, than respondents who thought him guilty. If this is the case, then the survey would find a higher-thanaccurate proportion of people who believed that Simpson did kill his wife. Relatedly but distinctly, the term might also be used to describe an instance where a survey respondent intentionally responds incorrectly to a question about their personal history which results in response bias. As a hypothetical example, suppose that a researcher conducts a survey among women of group A, asking whether they have had an abortion, and the same survey among women of group B. If the results are different between the two groups, it might be that women of one group are less likely to have had an abortion, or it might simply be that women of one group who have had abortions are less likely to admit to it. If the latter is the case, then this would skew the survey results; this is a kind of response bias. (It is also possible that both are the case: women of one group are less likely to have had abortions, and women of one group who have had abortions are less likely to admit to it. This would still affect the survey statistics.) Response bias From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Response bias is a type of cognitive bias which can affect the results of a statistical survey if respondents answer questions in the way they think the questioner wants them to answer rather than according to their true beliefs. This may occur if the questioner is obviously angling for a particular answer (as in push polling) or if the respondent wishes to please the questioner by answering what appears to be the "morally right" answer. An example of the latter might be if a woman surveys a man on his attitudes to domestic violence, or someone who obviously cares about the environment asks people how much they value a wilderness area. This occurs most often in the wording of the question. Response bias is present when a question contains a leading opinion. For example, saying "Given that at the age of 18 people are old enough to fight and die for your country, don't you think they should be able to drink alcohol as well?" yields a response bias. It is better to say "Do you think 18-year-olds should be able to drink alcohol?" It also occurs in situations of voluntary response, such as phone-in polls, where the people who care enough to call are not necessarily a statistically representative sample of the actual population. Non-response bias is not the opposite of "response bias" and is not a type of cognitive bias: it occurs in a statistical survey if those who respond to the survey differ in the outcome variable (for example, evaluation of the need for financial aid) from those who do not respond. Often, the differences, which may include race, gender or socioeconomic status, are reported and/or accounted for through statistical modelling in any publication of the results. Selection bias From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Selection bias is a statistical bias in which there is an error in choosing the individuals or groups to take part in a scientific study.[1] It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect. The term "selection bias" most often refers to the distortion of a statistical analysis, resulting from the method of collecting samples. If the selection bias is not taken into account then any conclusions drawn may be wrong.

Contents [hide]

1 Types o 1.1 Sampling bias o 1.2 Time interval o 1.3 Exposure o 1.4 Data o 1.5 Studies o 1.6 Attrition 2 Avoidance 3 Related issues 4 See also 5 Notes [edit]Types There are many types of possible selection bias, including: [edit]Sampling bias Sampling bias is systematic error due to a non-random sample of a population,[2] causing some members of the population to be less likely to be included than others, resulting in abiased sample, defined as a statistical sample of a population (or non-human factors) in which all participants are not equally balanced or objectively represented.[3] It is mostly classified as a subtype of selection bias,[4] sometimes specifically termed sample selection bias,[5][6] but some classify it as a separate type of bias.[7] A distinction, albeit not universally accepted, of sampling bias is that it undermines the external validity of a test (the ability of its results to be generalized to the rest of the population), while selection bias mainly addresses internal validity for differences or similarities found in the sample at hand. In this sense, errors occurring in the process of gathering the sample or cohort cause sampling bias, while errors in any process thereafter cause selection bias. Examples of sampling bias include self-selection, pre-screening of trial participants, discounting trial subjects/tests that did not run to

completion and migration bias by excluding subjects who have recently moved into or out of the study area. [edit]Time interval Early termination of a trial at a time when its results support a desired conclusion. A trial may be terminated early at an extreme value (often for ethical reasons), but the extreme value is likely to be reached by the variable with the largest variance, even if all variables have a similar mean. [edit]Exposure

Susceptibility bias Clinical susceptibility bias, when one disease predisposes for a second disease, and the treatment for the first disease erroneously appears to predispose to the second disease. For example, postmenopausal syndrome gives a higher likelihood of also developing endometrial cancer, so estrogens given for the postmenopausal syndrome may receive a higher than actual blame for causing endometrial cancer.[8] Protopathic bias, when a treatment for the first symptoms of a disease or other outcome appear to cause the outcome. It is a potential bias when there is a lag time from the first symptoms and start of treatment before actual diagnosis.[8] It can be mitigated by lagging, that is, exclusion of exposures that occurred in a certain time period before diagnosis.[9] Indication bias, a potential mix up between cause and effect when exposure is dependent on indication, e.g. a treatment is given to people in high risk of acquiring a disease, potentially causing a preponderance of treated people among those acquiring the disease. This may cause an erroneous appearance of the treatment being a cause of the disease.[10] [edit]Data

Partitioning data with knowledge of the contents of the partitions, and then analyzing them with tests designed for blindly chosen partitions.

Rejection of "bad" data on arbitrary grounds, instead of according to previously stated or generally agreed criteria. Rejection of "outliers" on statistical grounds that fail to take into account important information that could be derived from "wild" observations.[11] [edit]Studies

Selection of which studies to include in a meta-analysis (see also combinatorial meta-analysis). Performing repeated experiments and reporting only the most favorable results, perhaps relabelling lab records of other experiments as "calibration tests", "instrumentation errors" or "preliminary surveys". Presenting the most significant result of a data dredge as if it were a single experiment (which is logically the same as the previous item, but is seen as much less dishonest). [edit]Attrition Attrition bias is a kind of selection bias caused by attrition (loss of participants),[12] discounting trial subjects/tests that did not run to completion. It includes dropout, nonresponse (lowerresponse rate), withdrawal and protocol deviators. It gives biased results where it is unequal in regard to exposure and/or outcome. For example, in a test of a dieting program, the researcher may simply reject everyone who drops out of the trial, but most of those who drop out are those for whom it was not working. Different loss of subjects in intervention and comparison group may change the characteristics of these groups and outcomes irrespective of the studied intervention.[12]

[edit]Avoidance In the general case, selection biases cannot be overcome with statistical analysis of existing data alone, though Heckman correction may be used in special cases. An informal assessment of the degree of selection bias can be made by examining correlations between exogenous (background) variables and a treatment indicator. However, in regression models, it is correlation between unobserved determinants of the outcome and unobserved determinants of selection into the sample which bias

estimates, and this correlation between unobservables cannot be directly assessed by the observed determinants of treatment.[13] [edit]Related issues Selection bias is closely related to: publication bias or reporting bias, the distortion produced in community perception or meta-analyses by not publishing uninteresting (usually negative) results, or results which go against the experimenter's prejudices, a sponsor's interests, or community expectations. confirmation bias, the distortion produced by experiments that are designed to seek confirmatory evidence instead of trying to disprove the hypothesis. exclusion bias, results from applying different criteria to cases and controls in regards to participation eligibility for a study/different variables serving as basis for exclusion. [edit] Systematic error From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Systematic bias) Systematic errors are biases in measurement which lead to the situation where the mean of many separate measurements differs significantly from the actual value of the measured attribute. All measurements are prone to systematic errors, often of several different types. Sources of systematic error may be imperfect calibration of measurement instruments (zero error), changes in the environment which interfere with the measurement process and sometimes imperfect methods of observation can be either zero error or percentage error. For example, consider an experimenter taking a reading of the time period of a pendulum swinging past a fiducial mark: If his stop-watch or timer starts with 1 second on the clock then all of his results will be off by 1 second (zero error). If the experimenter repeats this experiment twenty times (starting at 1 second each time), then there will be a percentage error in the calculated average of his results; the final result will be slightly larger than the true period. Distance measured by radar will be

systematically overestimated if the slight slowing down of the waves in air is not accounted for. Incorrect zeroing of an instrument leading to a zero error is an example of systematic error in instrumentation. Systematic errors may also be present in the result of an estimate based on a mathematical model or physical law. For instance, the estimated oscillation frequency of a pendulum will be systematically in error if slight movement of the support is not accounted for. Systematic errors can be either constant, or be related (e.g. proportional or a percentage) to the actual value of the measured quantity, or even to the value of a different quantity (the reading of a ruler can be affected by environment temperature). When they are constant, they are simply due to incorrect zeroing of the instrument. When they are not constant, they can change sign. For instance, if a thermometer is affected by a proportional systematic error equal to 2% of the actual temperature, and the actual temperature is 200, 0, or 100, the measured temperature will be 204 (systematic error = +4), 0 (null systematic error) or 102 (systematic error = 2), respectively. Thus, the temperature will be overestimated when it will be above zero, and underestimated when it will be below zero. Constant systematic errors are very difficult to deal with, because their effects are only observable if they can be removed. Such errors cannot be removed by repeating measurements or averaging large numbers of results. A common method to remove systematic error is through calibration of the measurement instrument. In a statistical context, the term systematic error usually arises where the sizes and directions of possible errors are unknown. Contents [hide]

1 Drift 2 Systematic versus random error 3 See also 4 References

[edit]Drift Systematic errors which change during an experiment (drift) are easier to detect. Measurements show trends with time rather than varying randomly about a mean. Drift is evident if a measurement of a constant quantity is repeated several times and the measurements drift one way during the experiment, for example if each measurement is higher than the previous measurement which could perhaps occur if an instrument becomes warmer during the experiment. If the measured quantity is variable, it is possible to detect a drift by checking the zero reading during the experiment as well as at the start of the experiment (indeed, the zero reading is a measurement of a constant quantity). If the zero reading is consistently above or below zero, a systematic error is present. If this cannot be eliminated, for instance by resetting the instrument immediately before the experiment, it needs to be allowed for by subtracting its (possibly time-varying) value from the readings, and by taking it into account in assessing the accuracy of the measurement. If no pattern in a series of repeated measurements is evident, the presence of fixed systematic errors can only be found if the measurements are checked, either by measuring a known quantity or by comparing the readings with readings made using a different apparatus, known to be more accurate. For example, suppose the timing of a pendulum using an accuratestopwatch several times gives readings randomly distributed about the mean. A systematic error is present if the stopwatch is checked against the 'speaking clock' of the telephone system and found to be running slow or fast. Clearly, the pendulum timings need to be corrected according to how fast or slow the stopwatch was found to be running. Measuring instruments such as ammeters and voltmeters need to be checked periodically against known standards. Systematic errors can also be detected by measuring already known quantities. For example, a spectrometer fitted with a diffraction grating may be checked by using it to measure thewavelength of the D-lines of the sodium electromagnetic spectrum which are at 600nm and 589.6 nm. The measurements may be used to determine the

number of lines per millimetre of the diffraction grating, which can then be used to measure the wavelength of any other spectral line. [edit]Systematic versus random error Measurement errors can be divided into two components: random error and systematic error.[1] Random error is always present in a measurement. It is caused by inherently unpredictable fluctuations in the readings of a measurement apparatus or in the experimenter's interpretation of the instrumental reading. Random errors show up as different results for ostensibly the same repeated measurement. Systematic error cannot be discovered this way because it always pushes the results in the same direction. If the cause of a systematic error can be identified, then it can usually be eliminated.

Systemic bias is the inherent tendency of a process to favor particular outcomes. The term is a neologism that generally refers to human systems; the analogous problem in non-human systems (such as measurement instruments or mathematical models used to estimate physical quantities) is often called systematic bias, and leads to systematic error in measurements or estimates.[citation needed] Contents [hide]

1 Bias in human institutions 2 Examples 3 Systemic versus systematic bias 4 See also 5 References 6 Further reading [edit]Bias in human institutions For example, one might refer to the systemic, systematic, or institutional bias of a particular institution in devaluing contributions by women, men or ethnic minorities. For example, a poetry competition that was consistently won by white women could be

subject to suspicion of a bias if there were no inherent reason that white women would consistently be the best poets. Such a bias could be deliberate on the part of the judges or entirely unconscious.[citation
needed]

For example, the poetry contest might be judged by a pool drawn from its own previous winners, reasoning that prize-winning poets are the best to judge a poetry contest. However, it might be that in addition to choosing for poetic skill, they are also inclined to choose people with whom they have values in common, either about poetry or about other matters, resulting in a continuous stream of prizewinning white female poets. In this case, the bias could arise from either conscious or unconscious defense of gender and racial interests or simply from their shared point of view. In either case, it results in a biased representation of the reality they are describing in terms of quality of poets and poetry.[citation needed] Because cognitive bias is inherent in the experiences, loyalties, and relationships of people in their daily lives, it cannot be eliminated by education or training, but awareness of biases can be enhanced, allowing for the adoption of compensating correction mechanisms. For example, the theory behind affirmative action in the United States is precisely to counter biases in matters of gender, race, and ethnicity, by opening up institutional participation to people with a wider range of backgrounds, and hence presumably a wider range of points of view. InIndia the system of scheduled castes and tribes was intended to address systemic bias within the caste system. Similar to affirmative action, it mandates the hiring of persons within certain designated groups. However, in both instances (as well as numerous others), many people claim that a reverse systemic bias now exists[1]. [edit]Examples Financial Week reported May 5, 2008 (emphasis added): But we travel in a world with a systemic bias to optimism that typically chooses to avoid the topic of the impending bursting of investment bubbles. Collectively, this is done for career or business reasons. As discussed many times in the investment business, pessimism or realism in the face of probable trouble is just plain bad for business and bad for careers. What I am only slowly realizing,

though, is how similar the career risk appears to be for the Fed. It doesn't want to move against bubbles because Congress and business do not like it and show their dislike in unmistakable terms. Even Federal reserve chairmen get bullied and have their faces slapped if they stick to their guns, which will, not surprisingly, be rare since everyone values his career or does not want to be replaced la Mr. Volcker. So, be as optimistic as possible, be nice to everyone, bail everyone out and hope for the best. If all goes well, after all, you will have a lot of grateful bailees who will happily hire you for $300,000 a pop. [2] [edit]Systemic versus systematic bias There is some contention over the choice of the word systemic as opposed to systematic.[citation needed] "Systemic bias" and the older, more common expression "systematic bias" are often used to refer to the same thing; some users seek to draw a distinction between them, suggesting that systemic bias is most frequently associated with human systems, and related to favoritism.[citation needed] In engineering and computational mechanics, the word bias is sometimes used as a synonym of systematic error. In this case, the bias is referred to the result of a measurement or computation, rather than to the measurement instrument or computational method. Thus, expressions such as "bias of a measure" are sometimes used. Systematic bias is rarely used and systemic bias is never used with that meaning.[citation needed] Some authors try to draw a distinction between systemic and systematic corresponding to that between unplanned and planned, or to that between arising from the characteristics of a system and from an individual flaw. In a less formal sense, systemic biases are sometimes said to arise from the nature of the interworkings of the system, whereas systematic biases stem from a concerted effort to favor certain outcomes. Consider the difference between affirmative action (systematic) compared to racism and caste (systemic).[citation
needed]

[edit]