Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40134025›Full record

ArticleBMC psychology2025

Uncovering potential interviewer-related biases in self-efficacy assessment: a study among chronic disease patients.

Magdalena Holter, Alexander Avian, Martin Weger, Sanja Strini, Monja Michelitsch, Victoria Winkler, Agnes M Kloft, Julia Groß, Thomas Falb, Maximilian Gabriel and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Magdalena HolterInstitute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. magdalena.holter@medunigraz.at.
Alexander AvianInstitute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Martin WegerDepartment of Ophthalmology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Sanja StriniDepartment of Ophthalmology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Monja MichelitschDepartment of Ophthalmology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Victoria WinklerInstitute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Agnes M KloftInstitute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Julia GroßInstitute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Thomas FalbDepartment of Ophthalmology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Maximilian GabrielDepartment of Ophthalmology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Manuel GroßpötzlDepartment of Ophthalmology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Andreas WedrichDepartment of Ophthalmology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Andrea BergholdInstitute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSelf-efficacy refers to an individual's belief in their ability to accomplish specific tasks and achieve goals, and plays an essential role in achieving positive outcomes in a wide range of domains. Central to the measurement of any form of self-efficacy is the assessment without bias, also in case of an interview situation.

methodsOutpatients with macular edema, an eye disease, participated in this questionnaire-based cross-sectional study. The study assessed self-efficacy using the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE) in German. Interviewers read questionnaires aloud to patients. Differential item functioning (DIF) was investigated using likelihood-ratio χ2 tests for interviewer, sex, age, education, working status, income, diagnosis, and health-status.

resultsThe analysis included N = 556 patients. Median age was 68.4 (IQR: 62.0 - 76.0) years and mean overall GSE score 32.8 (SD: 4.81). No DIF was detected for interviewer. However, DIF was found in item 1 for education (uniform DIF, NCDIF

conclusionsGiven that no DIF was detected concerning interviewers, our findings indicate that an objective assessment of self-efficacy in a face-to-face interview may be feasible, provided that interviewers receive appropriate training. Since DIF effects concerning other patients characteristics found were small, the GSE may provide a relatively bias free way to assess self-efficacy in an interview setting.

Indexed as

Interviews as TopicSelf EfficacyAgedBiasChronic DiseaseCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesAdministration modeDifferential item functioningGeneral self-efficacy scaleInterviewer biasItem response theory

Identifiers

PMID40134025
PMCPMC11934557

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.