differential reporting
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

39
(FIVE YEARS 5)

H-INDEX

10
(FIVE YEARS 1)

2021 ◽  
Vol 256 ◽  
pp. 109077 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lina María Sánchez-Clavijo ◽  
Sindy Jineth Martínez-Callejas ◽  
Orlando Acevedo-Charry ◽  
Angélica Diaz-Pulido ◽  
Bibiana Gómez-Valencia ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. p11
Author(s):  
Clement C. M. Ajekwe ◽  
Adzor Ibiamke

This paper reviews literature of financial reporting by small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) with particular reference to Nigeria. The study justifies the use of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) by Nigerian enterprises. Thereafter, the paper recognises the economic importance of SMEs both globally and in Nigeria. Justification for differential reporting between listed entities and unlisted SMEs was articulated. The paper notes the advantages and challenges related to adopting IFRS for SMEs globally and in Nigeria. It is recommended that further research be undertaken to access empirically the impact and consequences of adopting IFRS for SMEs by unlisted enterprises in Nigeria


Nutrients ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 1001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Kirkpatrick ◽  
Clare Collins ◽  
Ruth Keogh ◽  
Susan Krebs-Smith ◽  
Marian Neuhouser ◽  
...  

To inform strategies to improve the dietary intakes of populations, robust evaluations of interventions are required. This paper is drawn from a workshop held at the International Society of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2017 Annual Meeting, and highlights considerations and research priorities relevant to measuring dietary outcomes within intervention studies. Self-reported dietary data are typically relied upon in such studies, and it is recognized that these data are affected by random and systematic error. Additionally, differential error between intervention and comparison groups or pre- and post-intervention can be elicited by the intervention itself, for example, by creating greater awareness of eating or drinking occasions or the desire to appear compliant. Differential reporting can render the results of trials incorrect or inconclusive by leading to biased estimates and reduced statistical power. The development of strategies to address intervention-related biases requires developing a better understanding of the situations and population groups in which interventions are likely to elicit differential reporting and the extent of the bias. Also needed are efforts to expand the feasibility and applications of biomarkers to address intervention-related biases. In the meantime, researchers are encouraged to consider the potential for differential biases in dietary reporting in a given study, to choose tools carefully and take steps to minimize and/or measure factors such as social desirability biases that might contribute to differential reporting, and to consider the implications of differential reporting for study results.


Author(s):  
Robyn Pilcher ◽  
David Gilchrist

Author(s):  
Peter Smith ◽  
Jamie Moore ◽  
Gabriele Durrant

BackgroundLinking survey and administrative data can enhance their collection and analysis. By linking the issued sample to administrative data, the representativeness of a survey can be assessed during and at the end of data collection. An understanding of the (lack of) representativeness can inform adaptive and responsive survey designs to improve representativeness and/or reduce survey costs. It can also aid the assessment of potential survey non-response bias and the implementation of strategies to adjust for such bias during analysis. Comparison of responses to the same question in two linked datasets can help identify problematic questions. This information can then be used to improve question wording to reduce measurement error in future surveys and to account for such error during analysis. ObjectivesTo assess how the representativeness of a survey changes after each attempt to contact the interviewees, and to assess the nature and extent of differential reporting between a face-to-face survey and the self-completion 2011 UK Census. Methods (including data)We present our recent research developing representativeness indicators based on the coefficient of variation of the response propensities calculated after each attempt to contact the interviewees and illustrate their use using Labour Force Survey (LFS) data linked to contemporaneous data from the 2011 Census. We also describe our work on differential reporting between the LFS and the Census, focussing on the reporting of highest qualification and ethnicity. Findings and ConclusionsOur results suggest that considerable savings can be made by reducing the number of attempts to obtain a response without a detrimental effect on representativeness and that face-to-face interviews obtain more accurate information than self-completion questionnaires.


2017 ◽  
Vol 67 (7) ◽  
pp. 522-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Y Zhou ◽  
M Carder ◽  
L Hussey ◽  
M Gittins ◽  
R Agius

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document